Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-0312 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY A PUBLIC NOTICE C� NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the We46 p Town of Vail on March 12, 2001, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a variance from Section 11- 4B -3(D) Vail Town Code, to allow for a second building identification sign, located at 548 S. f=rontage Road /Westwind Condominiums. Applicant: Westwind Condominium Association, Inc. Planner: Brent Wilson A request for a worksession to discuss rezoning from Agriculture and Open Space to Primary /Secondary Residential and a Minor Subdivision to create two residential lots and a request for a recommendation to the Town Council for an amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan changing the land use designation from Public /Semi - Public use to Low Density Residential, located at 3160 Booth Fails RoadlPart of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12 Filing. Applicant. Boothfalls Homeowner's Association, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Russell Forrest A request for variances from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks) and Title 14 (Development Standards - locating required parking in the Right -of -Way), to allow for a residential addition and remodel located at 2055 Bellflower Dr. / Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan Peters, represented by Braun Associates Planner: Allison Ochs The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 470 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published February 23, 2001 in the Vail Trail. • 1 5 11 TOWN OF VAIL TOWNOF FAILY Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970- 479 -2138 FAX 970 - 479 -2452 www.ci.vail.co.us March 28, 2001 Randy Linberg 1300 Westhaven Dr. Vail, CO 81857 and Planning and Environmental Commission and Adjacent Property Owners Re: A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 4 to allow for the conversion of an existing indoor tennis facility into a spa. Dear Randy, PEC members, and adjacent property owners: Based upon review of the criteria and findings in Section 12 -9A of the Vail Town Code, staff finds the above referenced amendment to Special Development District No. 4 is approved in accordance with the procedures as identified in Section 12 -9A -10 of the Vail Town Code, subject to the following condition: That no loading and delivery is permitted on the north side of the building. Staff's approval of this minor special development district amendment will be reported at a public hearing before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission on Monday, April 9 1h at 2:00 p.m. in the Vail Town Council Chambers, located at 75 S. Frontage Rd. The Planning and Environmental Commission reserves the right to "call up" a staff decision for additional review at this hearing. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, L -O Vail Hotel Inc., requested a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, to allow for the conversion of one existing indoor tennis court into additional spa facilities, located at 1295 Westhaven Dr. The existing spa and club facilities are approximately 78,000 sq. ft. The conversion of the tennis court into a spa involves no major exterior and expands the existing spa to 8,077 sq. ft. of the total facility. The existing spa uses encompass approximately 3,000 sq. ft. of the total facility. Reductions of the remodel have been attached for reference. A "minor amendment" is defined as: 4M 1 U 11, RECYC.LEDPAPER 7 Modifications to building plans, site or landscape plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved special development district, and are consistent with the design criteria of this Chapter. Minor amendments may include, but not be limited to, variations of not more than five feet (5') to approved setbacks and /or building footprints; changes to landscape or site plans that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the special development district; or changes to gross floor area (excluding residential uses) of not more than five percent (5 %) of the approved square footage of retail, office, common areas and other nonresidential floor area, except as provided under Sections 12 -15 -4 (Interior Conversions) or 12 -15 -5 (250 Additional CRFA) of this Title. H. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Section 12 -9A -2: Minor Amendment (staff review): modifications to building plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved special development district and are consistent with the design criteria of this Chapter. Special Development District No. 4 includes the existing Cascade Club and Spa, which is approximately 78,000 sq. ft. This is a proposal to convert one of the existing tennis courts within the club into additional spa. Staff finds that approval of this proposal does not alter the basic intent and character of Special Development District No. 4, which currently allows these uses. As stated above, no loading and delivery will be allowed on the north side of the building. Exterior modifications are minor, including the addition of doors and mechanical vents to the northern elevation. 0 B. Section 12- 9A -10: Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in subsection 12 -9A -2 may be approved by the department of Community Development. Notification of a proposed minor amendment and a report of staff action shall be provided to all property owners within or adjacent to the district that may be affected by the amendment. Notification shall be postmarked no later than 5 day following staff action on the amendment and shall include a brief statement describing the amendment and the time and date of when the Planning and Environmental Commission will be informed of the staff decision. As noted above, staff finds that the amendment is consistent with the design criteria outlined under subsection 12 -9A -2. Notification of the hearing and a summary of the proposal will be provided to all adjacent property owners within 5 days of today's date. Staff's approval of the request will be reported to the Planning and Environmental Commission on April 9'h, 2001. III. PROCEDURE Section 12 -9 of the Town Cade provides the procedure for a minor amendment to a Special Development District. The procedure is as follows: 12- 9A -10: AMENDMENT PROCEDURES: A. Minor Amendments. 1. Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in subsection 12 -9A -2 (definition of "minor amendment ") of this Article, may 2 pp- r be approved by the Department of Community Development. All minor modifications shall be indicated on a completely revised development plan. Approved changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by the Department of Community Development. 2. Notification of a proposed minor amendment, and a report of staff action of said request, shall be provided to all property owners within or adjacent to the special development district that may be affected by the amendment. Affected properties shall be as determined by the Department of Community Development. Notifications shall be postmarked no later than five (5) days following staff action on the amendment request and shall include a brief statement describing the amendment and the time and date of when the Planning and Environmental Commission will be informed of the staff decision. In all cases the report to the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be made within twenty (20) days from the date of the staffs decision on the requested amendment 3. Appeals of staff decisions may be filed by adjacent property owners, owners of property within the special development district, the applicant, Planning and Environmental Commission members or members of the Town Council as outlined in Section 12 -3 -3 of this Title. Pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Vail Town Code, appeals of staff decisions may be filed by adjacent property owners, owners of property within the special development district, the applicant, Planning and Environmental Commission members or members of the Town Council as outlined in Section 12 -3 -3 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. Should you have any questions, please do not 0 hesitate to contact me at 970- 479 -2369 Sincerely, Allison Ochs Planner 11 Attachments. reduction of the proposal i in b jj J41 t k i -- -------------------- — ------------------------ 24 I rte is All /WIT/ e ' 4 1 4111 I ---------- le -ii 0 c M G i IR R • • • TO 3r'vd iO3iIH3aV N0SNHCf Of 69OLZ68606 96:9T TOK/LVE0 L9919 DILP UsAwl?"m 0021 I a 13 v [SIGH VdS 2113V3SV3 11VA i in b jj J41 t k i -- -------------------- — ------------------------ 24 I rte is All /WIT/ e ' 4 1 4111 I ---------- le -ii 0 c M G i IR R • • • TO 3r'vd iO3iIH3aV N0SNHCf Of 69OLZ68606 96:9T TOK/LVE0 MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 9, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit, located at 0097 A &B Rockledge Road /Lots 3A & 313, Block 7, Vail Village 1 St Filing. Applicant: Bennett & Jacquie Dorrance, represented by Resort Design Collaborative Planner: Allison Ochs I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST In September and December of 1992, the Town Council passed Ordinances 9 and 27, Series of 1992, to create Chapter 13 (Employee Housing) which provides for the addition of Employee Housing Units (EHUs) as permitted or conditional uses within certain zone districts. In April of 2000, the Town Council passed Ordinance 6, Series of 2000, to repeal and reenact this chapter and provide additional incentives for the creation of employee housing in Vail. In Section 12 -2 -2, an Employee Housing Unit is defined as follows: Employee Housing Unit (EHU) : A dwelling unit which shall not be leased or rented for any period less than thirty (30) consecutive days, and shall be rented only to tenants who are full -time employees of Eagle County. EHUs shall be allowed in certain zone distracts as set forth in this Title (Section 12 -13). Development standards for EHUs shall be as provided in Chapter 13, "Employee Housing" of this Title. For the purposes of this definition, a gull- time" employee shall mean a person who works a minimum of an average of thirty (30) hours per week. There shall be five (5) categories of EHUs: Type 1, Type fl, Type lll, Type IV, and Type V. Provisions relating to each type of EHU are set forth in Chapter 13, "Employee Housing" of this Title. The applicant is proposing a Type II employee housing unit below a two -car garage in connection with a new single family residence. The employee housing unit will be approximately 403 sq. ft. in size and will include one bathroom, a full kitchen, a living room, and one bedroom. One enclosed parking space and one surface parking space are proposed for the EHU. The applicant is proposing to utilize 403 sq. ft. of the 500 sq. ft. GRFA credit. Reductions of the proposed EHU have been attached for reference. is ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for approval /denial of a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for 1 . Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience. traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas_ 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. 7. Conformance with development standards of zone district Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a Conditional Use Permit, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 0 The Community Development Department recommends approval of this application for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of Section 12 -13 (Employee Housing) and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of Section 12 -16 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Vail Municipal Code. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this application, the Community Development Department recommends the following condition: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Community Development Department shall receive proof from the applicant that a Type 11 Restrictive Covenant has been recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office, 2 thereby ensuring that the employee housing unit will be permanently restricted for employee housing. Please note that under Section 12 -16 of the Vail Town Code, the approval of a conditional use permit shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion, or the use for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two years from when the approval becomes final. IV. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: 28,401 sq. ft. Zoning: Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential Hazards: Slopes in excess of 30% Standard Allowed Existing Proposed Total GRFA 6,440 sq. ft. Demo 6,343 sq. ft. Primary 5,940 sq. ft. Demo 5,940 sq. ft. ENU 300 -1200 sq. ft. N/A 403 sq. ft_ Site Coverage 4,260 sq. ft.. (15 %) Demo 3,957 sq. ft. (14 %) Parking 3 spaces required for Primary unit 3 spaces (2 enclosed) 2 spaces required for EHU 2 spaces (1 enclosed) 0 5 spaces total (3 enclosed) Setbacks 20115/15115 20132/102/17 Landscaping 17,040 sq. ft. (required) 22,647 sq. ft. V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development obiectives of the Town. When the Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on November 20, 1990, it recognized a need to increase the supply of locals /employee housing units. The Town encourages EHUs as a means of providing quality living conditions and expanding the supply of employee housing for both year -round and seasonal local residents. The proposed unit will have a positive impact on the Town's rental housing needs. • 3 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities. and other public facilities needs Staff believes that there will be little impact from the proposed Type EHU on light, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools or parks. 3. Effect upon_ traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control. access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas Two additional vehicles are anticipated in association with this EHU. One enclosed parking space and one surface parking space are proposed. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact on the above - referenced criteria. Snow storage will be accommodated on the property. The driveway area and entrance, as proposed, comply with applicable development standards. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses The Planning and Environmental Commission has approved other Type II Employee Housing Units in this neighborhood. A Type II EHU was approved at 265 Forest Road in July, 1999, a Type 11 EHU was approved at 375 Forest Road in June, 2000, and a Type II EHU was approved at 185 Forest Road in March, 2001. This proposal is very similar. The scale and bulk of the proposed structure is also similar to those in existence in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff believes that the proposal will not significantly impact the scale and bulk of this project in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Employee_ Housing Units may be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified by Section 12 -13 of the Vail Municipal Code, Employee Housing and shall be subject to the following requirements; a. Zoning districts permitted by right or by conditional use. Type 11 EHUs are a conditional use in the Single- Family Residential, Two Family Residential, Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential, and Agriculture & Open Space zone districts, meeting minimum lot size requirements. The subject property is zoned Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential. b. Ownership/Transference. • 4 The EHU shall not be sold or transferred separately from the unit it is associated with. The applicant is not proposing to sell or transfer the EHU separately from the free - market dwelling units. c. Additional GRFA. The EHU is entitled to an additional 500 sq. ft. GRFA credit which the applicant is proposing to utilize. d. Garage Credit/Storage Requirement A 300 sq. ft. garage credit is allowed for the EHU. All units not constructed with a garage shall be required a minimum 75 sq. ft. of storage area in addition to normal closet space. This 75 sq, ft. shall be a credit for storage only. The applicant is proposing to utilize the 300 sq. ft. garage credit to accommodate one of the required parking spaces for the EHU. e. Parking Parking requirements for EHUs are per Chapter 12 -10. The proposed EHU will be 403 sq. ft, in size and requires two parking spaces, The applicant is proposing one enclosed parking space and one surface parking space for the EHU. f. Minimum /Maximum GRFA of an EHU The minimum square footage for a Type II EHU is 300 sq. ft. and the maximum square footage is 1,200 sq. ft. The proposed EHU will be 403 sq. ft. in size a. Density The EHU does not count towards density. B. Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for an Employee Housing Unit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of Section 12 -13 (,Employee Housing) and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or rI 5 improvements in the vicinity. 0 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of Section 12 -16 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Vail Municipal Code. • L•. Resort design 808- 449 -9SSB 04r02r09. 05:54P .,._... ilt t. � ry.r� r�vrrwww�scx�vtitun a _ ® I is 3�N�C]ISM 37N1d2E21U4] E ► ' ' r $ Il 'C V K7Q .tJ1J KKKKy KK'i.'K KKK t iiiii y fi UU W r•=-1 a i-� T s c c et t s° >� p O .J z dI I 1! 1. Akio i�A sa4ntrrM.�.���w1� ml M RaJ E 1 n.r ub1 wdr M r rdlre�p�,WpidanNia � �� c IL i� t1AAiRIp11d E ] 1 I i IM�ilwt huusLr�tl a � ! �EIl1iEl��� EI Will a 1 u a a lk� M z ��l� �I�11t11 I �1 E�iil1111 INI ResnrY Design 303- 449-3399 04102/01 OS:S4p p.004 �• [is I mg 0 o a a o a a �w a S \ �rd /\ Imo* � \� �'# 4 t/ `' ; ■ � � / l� v / r I G � t 1 fj' , \y NNW ✓ti��r err #fir \f r / � \{ �l�]�� 1 � 1 � '+ H f . #'\ \ #�'r C.c � • • Resort Des i gn 303 - 443 - 3366 04/02/01 0S:S4P P.00B v 1 f • I A • 6 6 d) (5 w 0 6 6 o f.u.ro,.,. W..ra" A&% 3:)N3OlS3d DNYSSOO v 1 f • I A • 6 6 d) (5 w 0 6 6 LI Resort Design 303- 449 -3866 04102x'01 0S:S4P P.009 Ci R- -,l } L r I rib -rot i� s mti.. a.dmr�n �V!q .AI•R a ! tl L 4 p * p Ill 3DN3QIS3S 3DNVSSO(I 1,06111"1" f:.3 Ci R- -,l } L r I rib -rot i� s _ Ate\ _ � 4 �� J I sa ii •' � -- � n • Resort Design 04l0:e /kJl It7S; }F' Y.011 �. , ♦ . . M. el rlf�l •, 1� roll r Kim •L�- � I!I!!1 hr �l.J i - __ t w Resort Design 303- 449 -3366 04/02/01 05:54P P.012 ti I , '4 ` � All T,tll� � I6 �wr► : , M■ ll c: C- �f i i • • • ResDri Des ign • 303- 449 -3366 04/02!01 05:54P P.016 E . 9�J . L INA M .� -A 1 I! � ��w� �- oar �•,�E X11' ► � ' !i>f Hl _ 7'•w�lll�l� � , Q i Il.n 9 i I MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRONT: Department of Community Development DATE: April 9, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for an addition in the front setback, located at 1001 Eagle's Test Circle /Lot 1, Block 6, Vail Village 7" Filing. Applicant: Kathleen Ferry Planner: Brent Wilson BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE RE UEST The applicant, Kathleen Ferry, is requesting a setback variance to allow for a portion of a new two -car garage (17.5 square feet) and new gross residential floor area (17.5 square feet) to be constructed within the front setback. The subject property fronts on two streets (Vail Valley Drive and Eagle's Best Circle) and is therefore constrained by two front setbacks (20' each). The east unit of the duplex (Ferry residence) currently has no off - street parking. The proposed garage would be located within the existing building footprint. The new third -level GRFA addition would be located above the current building footprint as it exists within the front setback. Therefore, the only "new' setback encroachment with this request is 17.5 square feet of GRFA at the upper level. The subject property was subdivided and platted by Eagle County in December of 1965. The applicant's survey information indicates a variance is necessary to add the third- level GRFA within the existing building footprint. According to a survey on file in the Department of Community Development, the proposed addition will not encroach into the setback at all. In an effort to address all potential encroachment concerns prior to construction, however, the applicant has chosen to move forward conservatively with a variance request. On May S, 2000, the PEG approved a nearly identical setback variance on the property noting the existing location of the structure (constructed prior to the adoption of Primary/Secondary zoning on the property) and the configuration of the lot as physical hardships. The 2000 variance approval also involved the addition of GRFA above an existing encroachment. Please refer to the attached plan reductions for details of the proposal. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the applicant's request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for an addition in the front setback, subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary setback circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District_ Specifically: the rendering of the structure as non - conforming with regard to setbacks after the adoption of new zoning in 1977. 3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. Staff s recommendation also carries the following conditions: Pursuant to Title 14 (Development Standards), Vail Town Code, proposed balconies may project not more than five feet (5) nor more than one -half (112) the minimum required dimension into a required setback area. 2. That the applicant submits a revised duplex plat for review and approval by the Department of Community Development to reflect the proposed changes to the building footprint. The approved revised plat will be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder by no later than April 9, 2002. It is important to note staff believes the conditions and circumstances regarding setbacks on this property are substantially different than the circumstances regarding previously denied site coverage variance requests on this property. Staff has always acknowledged a need for relief from setback limitations for this structure. Site coverage, however, is apportioned based on the size of a lot and this particular lot exhibits no non - conformities or hardships with regard to lot size. III. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES - VARIANCE Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for impacts of the proposed variance and then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning.. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible for final approval /denial of a variance. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1_ The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 0 2 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has no review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal /Preservation of trees and native vegetation Adequate provision for snow storage on -site Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms Provision of landscape and drainage - Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances Location and design of satellite dishes Provision of outdoor lighting - The design of parks Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of DRB or PErC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. • 3 IV. V. ZONING - SETBACK STATISTICS Zoning District: Primary /Secondary Residential District Lot Size: 15,960 square feet Minimum Required Lot Size: 1 5,000 square feet Standard Allowed /Required Proposed Setbacks Front (Ferry /east) 20 ft. 18 ft. (per floor plans) Side 15 ft. 13.3 ft_* (per ILC) / 22 ft. Front (Repettilwest) 20 ft. 11.5 ft_ ** * previously approved setback variance * *pre - existing setback encroachment CRITERIA AND FINDINGS — SETBACK VARIANCE A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Setback Variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Although this application involves a 2' (+ or -) encroachment into a required front setback, all other bulk and mass restrictions (GRFA, site coverage, building height) on the property would be met with this proposed remodel. Therefore, staff believes the finished structure would 40 be compatible in size to other existing uses and structures. Additionally, the existing deficiency of off - street parking for the applicant's residence creates an aesthetic and traffic circulation concern for adjacent neighbors. Therefore, staff believes the proposed garage addition will have a positive impact upon other uses in the vicinity. Additionally, it appears the applicant has responded to previous direction given by the Town of Vail Design Review Board to locate the garage within the existing footprint in an effort to avoid impacting mature vegetation on site. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Hardship The applicant's residence was constructed prior to the adoption of zoning regulations in the Town of Vail. The structure became non - conforming only after the Town applied Primary/Secondary zoning in 1977. On May 8, 2000, the PEC made a finding that these conditions constitute a hardship for the property and granted a similar setback variance. Staff agrees with the PEC finding for both the past and current variance requests. Is 4 Special Privilege The following is a summary of similar garage/GRFA setback variances granted by the PEC in recent years within the Primary /Secondary zone district: • Huerta Residence, 3003 Bellflower Dr. The variance that was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission allowed 90 sq. ft. of GRFA beneath the garage. ■ Vlaar Residence, 2963 Bellflower Dr. Allowed for approximately 110 sq. ft. of GRFA in the front setback. ■ Hilb /Cummings Residence, 2338 Garmisch Dr. 815 sq. ft. of GRFA was allowed beneath the garage within the front setback. ■ Phillips Residence, 2696 Davos Tr. The lot has slopes greater than 30 %, therefore the garage was located in the front setback. 874 sq. ft. of GRFA was allowed beneath the garage. ■ Drisko Residence, 325 Forest Rd. The Planning and Environmental Commission found a hardship in the steep slopes off of Forest Rd. No GRFA was approved in conjunction with the garage, and the applicant actually removed GRFA from beneath the second garage in the setback as part of the approval. Aylesworth Residence 2586 Davos Tr. 24 sq. ft. of garage was located in the side setback as part of this variance request. ■ Lashovitz Residence, 1748 Sierra Tr. No GRFA was approved in conjunction with a variance granted for a garage- Taylor Residence 2409 Chamonix Rd. No GRFA was approved in conjunction with a variance granted for a garage. Given the history of other variances granted for properties with similar circumstances within the Prima rylSeconda ry zone district, staff does not believe approval of the proposed setback variance would constitute a grant of special privilege. Additionally, staff does not believe the proposed encroachment is excessive in its deviation from the setback requirements. 3. The effect of the requested variance on Might and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff' does not believe there would be any negative impacts associated 40 with this proposal, if constructed, on the above - referenced criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3_ That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. • • 0 7N I • JNllld H1N3A36 9DV'I11A IIVA ff)13O'79'l1O 1`B`famlva 3 ; 9 - IOU13 JL S3N S3 1004 :1 r Q Lu p LIN 7 y . / m � m 2 f \� • au u� 4 g 4 R kl 4 N6 f { N6\ �+ Vf 1 I ` i i 4 V'-o f 4 � r K w h. in PMp a Ov �a rW, dl 7 • ONI H1Al3A38 3VV 71VA '�NI li V r 4 9 U3019 `4 101 'S 13oww'd � I 3 J-S3N SR LOOL • • J I Z 5 d G z og oil �s R _____ ________ h Z W f p I p t�! Q CI W N J D 4 O S lV 3 p h �� wr 7 — — — — — -- A �� — — — — — - — i • 1 U LJ LL Q w z p d 6 • rvm a 4 Y. LL LU 6 J' LL 1 aw Q t Y a rvm E C7 - 1 O se • O 7N1 1 9NI,1� N1N3h3S 3`,)1�1'llh 11Vh S W3 'L 1f7"1 '9 `[3a?1Vid q&cb N d fagl 3 313i10 1S3N S31JbrB L001. W 3 n t I ■ ■wl I I o J W H � u 3 T • o 9 J Q� �s 3I ?rE i • 1 I 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 9, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss the rezoning of the Mill Creek Court Building from CCI to a zone district or special development district that would allow office and residential uses on the street level, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive /Lot 1, Block 5A, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Mill Creek Court Condominium Association, represented by Larry Eskwith Planner: Allison Ochs DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Mill Creek Court Condominium Association, represented by Larry Eskwith, requested this worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss the opportunities within the Mill Creek Court Building. Specifically, the applicant has an interest in allowing office and/or residential uses on the first floor. II. BACKGROUND A. History Information on the original construction and approval process for the Mill Creek Court Building is limited. It was constructed prior to the incorporation of the Town and the information from Eagle County is not available. Plans on file with the Department of Community Development are dated 1965. The Town files.indicate very limited activity on the building since its construction, limited to minor Design Review Board applications,. and Conditional Use Permit requests. In 1986, a request was made to begin preliminary discussions regarding redevelopment of the Mill Creek Court Building. However, a recommendation was made by staff to hold off on redevelopment until the completion of the Vail Village Master Plan and the applicant agreed. Another request to discuss a rezoning was made a few years later, but according to the file, nothing became of the informal request. Current uses in the building include retail shops along Gore Creek Dr. (Buzz's); retail, real estate office, and a bank on the creek side; and a real estate office and empty commercial spaces on Hanson Ranch Rd. B. Land Use Plan The Mill Creek Court Building is identified as part of the Village core, and is therefore designated as part of the Vail Village Master Plan by the Vail Land Use Plan. However, there are some specific goals and policies specified in the Land Use Plan regarding development in the Village core: • 4. Village Care /Lionshead 49 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in the existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.2 increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master flan. 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling. mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) 4.4 The connection between the Village Core and Lionshead should be enhanced through: a) Installation of a new type of people mover. b) Improving the pedestrian system with a creatively designed connection, oriented toward a nature walk, alpine garden, and/or sculpture plaza. c) New development should be controlled to limit commercial uses. C. Vail Village Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan identifies goals, objectives, policies and action steps for the entire Vail Village, then breaks up these goals to applicable sub - areas. The first goal of the Vail Village Master Plan is to: Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and idenitity. 0 The second goal of the Vail Village Master Plan is: To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year - around economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. To that effect, Policy 2.4.1 states: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. The Vail Village Master Plan identifies the Mill Creek Court Buildings as 'mixed use ". This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail and a limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270,000 sq. ft. of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of the Vail Village. The Mill Creek Court Building is included in Commercial Core I Sub Area 1#3. According 2 0 to the Vail Village Master Plan: This pedestrianized area of the Village represents the traditional image of Vail. A mixture of residential and commercial uses, limited vehicular access, and inter- connected pedestrian ways are some of the characteristics that distinguish this area from other portions of the Village. With the exception of embellishing pedestrian walkways, developing plazas with greenspace, and adding a number of infill developments, it is a goal of the community to preserve the character of the Village as it is today. Specifically with regards to the Mill Creek Court Building, the Vail Village Master Plan states: Partial infill of the Mill Creek Court Building courtyard (one story retail) in conjunction with the development of a public plaza and embellishments to the walkway along Mill Creek. Purpose of improvements is to strengthen pedestrian circulation in this area of the Village. The Vail Village Master Plan indicates a pedestrian connection across Mill Creek and between the Red Lion Building and the Rucksack Building. Currently the connection is non- existent, with mechanical equipment and decks between the buildings, nor is there a bridge across Mill Creek. In addition, commercial infill on the creek side of the Red Lion is also indicated. According to the Vail Village Master Plan. The development of commercial frontage along the west side of Mill Creek to encourage pedestrian traffic in this area. Pedestrian improvements including the bridge over Mill Creek and a mid -block connection to Bridge Street are also desired. The Vail Village Master Plan does not identify criteria for an amendment to the plan. However, the Vail Land Use Plan identifies the following criteria for a Land Use Plan amendment: t . How conditions have changed since the plan was adopted. 2. How the plan is in error. 3. How the addition, deletion or change to the plan is in concert with the plan in general. D. Zoning The Mill Creek Court Building is currently zoned Commercial Core I. The purpose of the CC] zone district is: The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The is 3 District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of Go buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. The CCI zone district allows for only certain uses on each level of the building. As the street level of the CCI zone district is intended to be a pedestrianway, permitted uses are generally limited to retail uses and restaurant uses. Section 12 -78 -3A states "the 'first floor' or `street level' shall be defined as that floor of the building that is located at grade or street level. Residential and office uses are limited to the second level or above. Section 12 -713 (Commercial Gore 1) has been attached for reference. The criteria for a rezoning are: 1. Is the existing zoning suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent land uses? 2 is the amendment presenting a convenient workable relationship with land uses consistent with municipal objectives? 3. Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly viable community? 4. Is the change consistent with the Land Use Plan? • E. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plant The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan also guides development within the Village core. As part of the Village core, there are important goals and objectives stated within the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan that also have an impact on the Mill Creels Court Building. Pedestrianization A major objective for the Vail village is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Streetsca e Framework To improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types of improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered: - 1. Open space and landscaping — berms, grass, flowers, and tree planting as a soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes; and plazas and park green spaces as open nodes and focal points along those routes. 2. lnfill commercial storefronts expansion of existing buildings or new infill development to create new commercial activity generators to give street life and visual interest, as attractions at key locations along pedestrian routes. 4 0 Transparency Pedestrian scale is created in many ways, but a major factor is the openness, attractiveness, and generally public character of the ground floor fagade of adjacent buildings. Transparent storefronts are `people attractors" opaque or solid walls are more private, imply "do not approach': On pedestrian - oriented streets such as in the Village, ground floor commercial facades are proportionately more transparent that upper floors. Upper floors are typically more residential, private, and thus less open. III. ZONING ANALYSIS Standard Allowed Under CCI Existing* GRFA 80% or 8,312 10,434 sq. ft. Density 5.76 units 11 units Site Coverage 80% or 8,312 sq. ft. 6,384 sq. ft. Lot Size 5,000 sq. ft. 10,039 sq. ft. Setbacks per Urban Design Guide Plan built to property line Retail n/a 3.553 sq. ft. Office n/a 2,746 sq. ft. *All information is taken from the legal file and must be verified with as- builts prior to any formal application. IV". ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS The applicant has specifically requested the ability to do office and /or residential uses on the first floor, in conflict with Section 12 -78 -3 of the Town Cade. The CCI zone district does not allow either of these uses. The Zoning Regulations do not allow for a "use variance" nor does a Special Development District allow for variations from the use requirements of the underlying zone district. Staff has identified the following scenarios to allow for these uses on the first floor of the Mill Creek Court Building. In addition, pros and cons of each scenario have been identified. Some of the scenarios. involve a zoning change and /or an dment to the Vail Village Master Plan. rend CCI e purpose of the CCI zone district is: The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. 5 The Mill Creek Court Building is currently zoned Commercial Core I. Scenario A involves amending the CCI zone district to allow for residential and/or office uses on the first floor, either as a permitted use or as a conditional use_ Pros Would satisfy the request of the Mill • Creek Court Building Would not require a rezoning Would not create a non - conforming - situation with the Mill Creek Court Building Cons Contrary to Village Master Plan stated objectives and goals for the Village core Village Master Plan encourages horizontal zoning with higher intensity uses on the first floor Would apply to all CCI zoned properties in the Village Contrary to the purpose statement of the CCI zone district Would detract from the pedestrian, Village experience Offices would displace more desirable uses at the street level Lack of transparency on street level by "privatizing" uses on first level B. Amend CCII and Rezone to CCII The purpose of the Commercial Core II zone district is: 40 The Commercial Core 2 District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple - dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core 2 District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations, as adopted in Section 12 -70- 15 or this Article is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the ,permitted types of building and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. The original intent of the CCII zone district was to regulate development within the Lionshead area. However, the recent adoption of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the subsequent rezoning of Lionshead from CCII to Lionshead Mixed Use I and 11, has altered the need for the CCII zone district. Currently, only one property is zoned CCII -- Village Center. CCII zoning also incorporates horizontal zoning, allowing the same permitted and conditional uses as the CCI zone district. Amending the CCII zone district to allow for residential and /or office uses as a conditional use and then requesting a rezoning to CCII, would meet the needs of the Mill Creek Court Building. The CCII zone district would become the transition area between the intensive commercial uses of the CCI zone district in the Village and the more residential character of the neighborhoods surrounding the Village core. 6 is Pros • CCII needs to be updated and modified with the recent adoption of LMU1 and 2 • Would not create a non - conforming situation with the Mill Creek Court Building • Would satisfy the request of the Mill Creek Court Building • Would apply to limited properties Cons • Would be contrary to the Vail Village Master Plan which identifies the Mill Creek Court Building as part of Commercial Core I • Would also apply to Village Center which is located on an identified pedestrian way • CCII was originally intended for the Lionshead commercial core area • Would be inconsistent with the purpose of CCII. • Would be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan C. Rezone to CSC and Apply for a Special Development District The purpose of the Commercial Service Center zone district is: The Commercial Service Center District is intended to provide sites for general shopping and commercial facilities serving the Town, together with limited multiple - family dwelling and ledge uses as may be appropriate without interfering with the basic commercial functions of the District. The Commercial Service Center District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to permitted types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient shopping center environment for permitted commercial uses_ Unlike the CCI and CCII, zone districts, CSC does not have horizontal zoning requiements. Offices are a permitted use and multipe- family dwellings are a conditional use in CSC. However, CSC does not defer to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations for development standards. Instead, CSC has prescribed setbacks, site coverage, density, etc. Therefore, in addition to rezoning to CSC, the Mill Creek Court Building would have to apply for a Special Development District to allow for variations from the underlying zoning. Only one other property in Vail is zoned CSC — Crossroads, located at 141 E. Meadow Dr. Pros • Would meet 'he request of the Mill Creek Court Building Cons • Would create a non - conforming situation or would require the establishment of a Special Development District. • Would be contrary to the Vail Village Master Plan which identifies the Mill Creek Court Building as part of Commercial Core I • Some of the permitted and conditional uses are not suitable to the Village core • Would be inconsistent with adjacent zoning of CCI or HDMF Would have no effect on other properties currently zoned CSC 7 D. Rezone to HDMF and Apply for a Special Development District The purpose of the High Density Multiple Family Zone District is: The High Density Multiple- Family District is intended to provide sites for multiple - family dwellings at densities to a maximum of twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre, together with such public and semi - public facilities and lodges. private recreation facilities and related visitor - oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district_ The High Density Multiple- Family District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, which relate to the nature of Wail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community and, where permittedd, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the District. The High Density Multiple - Family zone district allows for multiple - family residential dwellings as a permitted use. However, office uses are not allowed in HDMF. Again, HDMF has prescribed development standards, including setbacks, site coverage, density, etc. As a result, the Mill Creek Court Building would also have to apply for a Special Development District so as not to be rendered non - conforming by the rezoning. The Vail Row Houses, which are adjacent to the Mill Creek Court Building, are zoned HDMF. Pros • Would meet the request of the Mill • Creek Court Building to do residential uses Cons Would create a non- conforming situation or would require the establishment of a Special Development District or amendment of the zone district. Would be contrary to the Vail Village Master Plan which identifies the Mill Creek Court Building as part of Commercial Core Would have no effect on other • properties zoned HDMF E. New Zone District Would not permit office uses The applicant could propose a new zone district which would meet their request of allowing residential and /or office on the first level. This zone district could be similar to CCI or CCII, which has few prescribed development standards, deferring instead to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. Pros Cons Would meet the request of the Mill • Would be limited to this property and Creek Court Building could be considered a spot zoning Would not create a non- conforming • status of Mill Creek Court 8 0 • • Vf�11. �O WN71t7u�ES #3 -3 Seibert Circle Study Area Study area to establish a more inviting public plaza with greenspace, improved sun exposure and a focal point at the top of Bridge Street. Design and extent of new plaza to be sensitive to fire access and circulation considerations. Special emphasis on 3.1, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2. #3 -4 Mill Creek Commercial Infill The development of commercial frontage along the west side of Mill Creek to encourage pedestrian traffic in this area. Pedestrian improvements including the bridge over Mill Creek and a mid -block connection to Bridge Street are also desired (see Urban Design Guide plan). Improvements to Mill Creek (landscaping, utility relocation and stream bank stabilization) as well as loading and delivery, must be addressed. Special emphasis on 2.4, 2.5, 3.4, 4.1, 6.1. #3 - 5 Mill Creek Court Partial infill of the Mill Creek Court Building courtyard (one story retail) in conjunction with the development of a public plaza and embellishments to the walkway along Mill Creek. Purpose of improvements is to strengthen pedestrian circulation in this area of the Village. Special emphasis on 1.2, 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1. 48 � � .� � � W CL 0 L. a. � � � � � � L � � � � � � .� co � � 0 L) � � � � � � ■ � � r_ 0 N » 22a�c aJ ■ . I $ ° ® - 2 2 . § § i § ch ( k a� k k j■ 2 $ j c k §% t 5§§ t 2 2 ��■ =CL uuQOa »CL 0 � E � �5 � � 2 0 � : � U 0 0 0 0 - 0 MEMORANDUM 40 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 9, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on the adoption of the Eagle County Regional Trails Plan. Applicant: Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson The Eagle Valley Trails Committee has prepared a draft multi- jurisdictional trails plan (attached) for the Eagle Valley. The plan addresses the design, construction and maintenance of trails throughout the Eagle Valley, with an emphasis on a "core" trail between Glenwood Canyon and Vail Pass. Gregg Barrie (Public Works) and Brent Wilson (Community Development) have been working with ECRTA staff to review the document and provide technical input from the Town of Vail. On March 20 ' the Vail Town Council directed staff to begin the process for adoption of the plan as a supplement to our existing master plan documents. Therefore, staff is requesting input, suggestions and a formal recommendation from the PEC on the draft plan. There are some minor discrepancies between the draft plan and other Town of Vail master plan documents. For example, the recommended sidewalk widths in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan are significantly wider than the widths recommended in the draft trails plan. However, the draft plan contains language granting local jurisdictions the authority to determine which standards are most appropriate when conflicts arise. This concept will also be carried into the subsequent intergovernmental agreement for adoption of the plan. Design and construction standards proposed in the plan (AASHTO standards) are identical to those currently used by the Town of Vail Department of Public Works. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff believes the trails committee and ECRTA staff have done an outstanding job in the creation of a strategy for much needed trail amenities within the Eagle Valley. The realization of the plan's goals will be of substantial benefit to Vail and the citizens of Eagle County. Therefore, the Department of Community Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend approval of the Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan to the Vail Town Council, subject to the following finding: That the proposed Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan is consistent with community goals, in the interest of public welfare, and will provide for the improvement of transportation facilities within the Town of Vail and throughout the Eagle Valley. • eco irailf... • i • i • i • • • • f • f f f i • • • • i • • • • • i • • i • f i • • i • i 7 • • 4i agle county regional trails system Memorandum Date: February 28, 2001 To: Town of Vail From: Ellie Caryl, ECO Trails Planner Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority (ECO) RE: Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan Please find the attached review draft of the Eagle Valley Regional Trail Plan. The plan outlines the route, costs and design for a regional trail that connects the communities from Qotsero to Vail to Red Cliff. The implementation of the plan will be a joint effort by all of the communities working together. This draft is the result of a combined effort by the planning, engineering or management staff at Gypsum, Eagle, Avon, Vail, Minturn, Red Cliff, and Eagle County and included input from the citizens and elected and appointed officials and citizens involved with town and county councils, boards and planning commissions. The citizen volunteer Eagle Valley Trails Committee and ECO Trails staff have acted as facilitators of the planning process. At this time, we request your comments on the draft plan. We are meeting with each of the participating jurisdictions to review the plan after which we will prepare the final version and present it to you for adoption. A complete map set (31 maps) will be presented at the meeting but in the interest of reducing bulk and waste, we have inserted only the maps pertinent to your community in this review copy. We hope that is acceptable but we are also able to provide you with a complete set upon request. At your meeting on Tuesday, March 13, we will make a presentation about the plan contents, discuss the trail maps specific to your town and surrounding area, and ask for your comments. Please take a moment to review the plan prior to the meeting. While we would like as many comments as possible at the meetings, March 28, 2001 has been set for receipt of all comments (see fax/address information below) on the draft plan. Thank you for your time and we look forward to meeting with you on Tuesday, March 13. • .. • . • . • • • • • • . .. • . • • • • • eagle county regional transportation authority 3289 Cooley Mesa Road, PO Box 1070, Gypsum, CO 81637 tel: 9701328 -3520 fax: 9701328 -3539 email: mobility@vail.net M., • u Eagle Vallev Regional Trails Plan 0/eft2 feftfl. W, 2,0 FOR PUBLIC INPUT • Chapter 2 Estimated Costs and Construction Priorities Summary of Estimated Costs of the Planned Core Trail 2 -1 Criteria for Core Trail Construction Priorities 2 -2 Core Trail Construction Priority Projects 2 -3 Priorities for Shared Road Improvements 2 -4 Chapter 3 Planning Maps for the Eagle Valley Regional Trails System 3 -1 to 29 Chapter 4 Design and Construction Standards Introduction 4 -1 Fundamentals of Trail Design 4 -1 Design Standards 4 -2 to 15 Chapter 5 The Railroad Corridor as a Trail Corridor Background 5 -1 Options for Trail Use of the Corridor 5 -1 Summary of Options 5 -2 Analysis by Section 5 -3 Summary of Rail Corridor Analysis 5 -7 Chapter 6 Trail Maintenance Recommended Core Trail Maintenance Program 6 -1 Other Considerations 6 -2 Appendices: A Detailed Cost Estimates by Trail Section B Trail Plan Process Participants C References D Recommended Core Trail Furniture and Accessories EAGLE VALLEY REGIONAL TRAILS PLAN 'fable of Contents Chapter 1 Plan Overview Page Introduction 1 -1 Geographic Scope of the Plan 1 -1 Location Map 1 -2 Goals of the Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan 1 -3 Types of Trails 1 -4 Types of Trail Users 1 -5 Implementation of the Regional Trails Plan 1 -6 Relationship to Other Planning Documents 1 -7 Amendment of the Regional Trails Plan 1 -7 Recommended Related Studies 1 -7 Trails Plan Process 1 -8 Funding the Trails System Construction 1 -8 Chapter 2 Estimated Costs and Construction Priorities Summary of Estimated Costs of the Planned Core Trail 2 -1 Criteria for Core Trail Construction Priorities 2 -2 Core Trail Construction Priority Projects 2 -3 Priorities for Shared Road Improvements 2 -4 Chapter 3 Planning Maps for the Eagle Valley Regional Trails System 3 -1 to 29 Chapter 4 Design and Construction Standards Introduction 4 -1 Fundamentals of Trail Design 4 -1 Design Standards 4 -2 to 15 Chapter 5 The Railroad Corridor as a Trail Corridor Background 5 -1 Options for Trail Use of the Corridor 5 -1 Summary of Options 5 -2 Analysis by Section 5 -3 Summary of Rail Corridor Analysis 5 -7 Chapter 6 Trail Maintenance Recommended Core Trail Maintenance Program 6 -1 Other Considerations 6 -2 Appendices: A Detailed Cost Estimates by Trail Section B Trail Plan Process Participants C References D Recommended Core Trail Furniture and Accessories 0 CNAPTERI Plan Overview Introduction As the population of Eagle County has grown over the last twenty years, so has the demand for walking and bicycle trails for transportation or recreation. This regional trails plan was created to specifically describe the vision for an Eagle Valley Regional Trails System that will connect the communities of the Eagle River and Gore Creek Valleys. The primary focus of this Plan is the creation of a paved arterial "core" trail, the Eagle Valley Trail, that will span the county from Vail Pass at the east end to Glenwood Canyon at the west end. The Plan also depicts a major "spur" trail traveling from Dowd Junction to the town of Red Cliff, through Minturn. Additionally, links to other existing or planned public trails, paved and unpaved, are included in the Plan information. Shared use of roads by bicycles, pedestrians and motor vehicles is also an important part of the total system. Together, these components will create a network of non - motorized transportation routes and recreation opportunities throughout Eagle County. Geographic Scope of the Plan The Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan pertains to the portion of Eagle County that coincides with the watershed boundaries of the Eagle River and part of the Colorado River valley. The specific focus of this Plan is the Interstate 70 and Highway 24 corridors. The Roaring Fork River and Fryingpan River watershed area of Eagle County is not included in this plan. That portion of Eagle County is addressed in separate Eagle County or Town of Basalt planning documents specific to the Roaring Fork Valley side of Eagle County. The following map depicts that area that is specifically addressed by this plan, the valleys of the Eagle River and Gore Creek, but the mission to create a safe and enjoyable trails network applies to the whole of Eagle County. • Ch. 1 Pg. 1 Goals of the Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan This plan is intended to: 1. Promote COOPERATIVE. PARTNERSHIPS for trail planning, funding, design, construction and maintenance between local governments, organizations, businesses and citizens. 2. Provide ALIGNMENT AND DESIGN DETAILS for a valley -wide, shared use, non- motorized off -road trail system that is safe and enjoyable. 3. Promote IMPROVEMENT OF LOCAL ROADWAYS and revision of standards to accommodate certain types of non- motorized uses. This plan promotes both the creation of a valley -wide trail system and the improvement of local roads with wider shoulders, bike lanes or bike routes to improve safety overall. 4. Provide information on TRAIL SEGMENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS for capital improvement budgeting and annual work programs. This baseline information is formatted for periodic updating, every three years recommended. 5. Provide a PRIORITIZED LIST OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS which can be periodically evaluated and updated as necessary. 6. Provide recommendations and GUIDANCE FOR LAND USE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW by local governments and supports the goals of existing land use plans regarding provision of trail facilities. T Provide documentation that can be referenced and presented while FUNDRAISING from private sources and grant agencies. 8. Serve as a PUBLIC INFORMATION AND SUPPORT BUILDING TOOL for efforts by ECO Trails, the towns and Eagle County. Ch. 1 fig. 3 J Types of Trams • For the purpose of this plan, the word "trail" is used to refer to both paved and unpaved routes, and the exact type differentiated as necessary in the text. Path is commonly used to describe paved bike trails (e.g. bike paths) but for consistency in this plan, only the word "trail" is used. The regional trail system is planned to be a three season system, with some sections remaining usable throughout the year. Types of trail in the system include= Off -Road Shared Use Trail - typically a paved trail from which motor vehicles are prohibited and is shared by bicycles, pedestrians, joggers, equestrians, in -line skaters and other non - motorized users. Where such trail or path is part of a highway right -of -way, it is separated from the roadway and from motor - vehicle traffic, by an open space, grade separation, or barrier. A 2000 report issued by the Colorado Department of Transportation documents that paved off street bike paths are preferred over roadways for recreation or commuting by bicycle. UnpavedTralls - In Eagle County, hiking trails on U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management public lands are the most common form of this trail type. Most common use is for recreation. Some jurisdictions in Eagle County have constructed unpaved nature walks or pathways along waterways which are typically narrow and meandering and not open to bicycle use. Trail links to, and into, the backcountry are shown an the trail plan maps and additlonal backcountry detail is available on other maps prepared by Eagle County and ECQ Trails. Some sections of the core trail route may remain unpaved until demand warrants the expense but at eight to ten feet, the planned core trail and the major spurs will be much wider than the typical unpaved hiking or nature trail. Shared Roadways - most roads in Eagle County are open to both motor vehicle and bicycle or pedestrian travel. In some locations, signed bike lanes or bike routes (see Chapter 4 for definitions) exist but generally travel is relegated to the shoulder of the road which is not specifically designed or striped to accommodate non - motorized users. Sidewalks are also part of a shared roadway system but are typically for pedestrian traffic only. Users of shared roadways include all types - commuters, fitness trainers and for casual recreation. • Ch. 1 Pg. 4 Types of Trail Users The following types of users will be considered during the planning, design and management of the Eagle Valley Regional Trail system: Pedestrians, joggers or runners, equestrians, in -line skaters, cross country skiers, hikers, fishermen, boaters and bicyclists. These user types can be grouped into four distinct categories based on the type of use, why they choose that type of use and where they prefer to do it: The Becreatilonal" trail or shared -road user primarily includes walking or cycling children and families or adults out for social or exercise reasons. Recreational users are generally local residents but may include tourists from outside of the area that want to enjoy some exercise and exploration. In general, recreational users prefer separated trails and low volume streets. Children account for a large percentage of users in neighborhoods and on routes to schools, recreation areas and some commercial centers. Typically, a large percentage of children under 16 ride or own a bike. The "Miner" category defines cyclists training for competition who generally prefer to travel faster and longer distances than the recreational cyclist. Trainers tend to prefer roads over shared -use trails separated from roads because of allowable higher speeds, fewer intersections that require the road traffic to stop, and conflicts with other paths users. Once in motion, trainers like to keep up their momentum. The Trainer category also applies to runners, '1k joggers and in -line skaters_ Those users have influenced shared -use trail design in the last ten years to include adjacent soft - surface running paths or increased width to accommodate in -line skating patterns. The "Commuter or "Iltlllty" user walks or bikes to work or school on a trail or road. This category is usually local residents and they prefer the most direct routes with the least stops and delays. Low volume streets or trails are ideal but a high volume street may be part of their route because of being more direct. Utility trips include trips to the store, library, bank, etc. The perceived benefits of bike and pedestrian commuting includes financial savings, improving health and environmental stewardship_ The °EgaeStrlan" trail user warrants specific mention because they have different needs or preferences than the other user types. Equestrians generally prefer not to mix with vehicular traffic, especially avoiding busy roads. Horses and bicycles, or horses and pedestrians with pets are sometimes not compatible. Paved trails are generally not designed for use by horses and not preferred by riders. Surface maintenance issues may also arise if the trail is swept on an infrequent basis. Opportunities do exist within the proposed system to construct bridle paths alongside the core trail but located at a safe, compatible distance. The planning maps identify trail sections where a bridle path or horse trailer parking can likely be accommodated_ The use and enjoyment of horses is a large part of the region's history and present day lifestyles and this plan advocates accommodating that use where compatible with more common types of users listed above. Ch. 1 Pg. 5 Remaining Trail Sections to Pri orit i ze: 4W 1. Eagle through Wolcott to West Edwards 2. Downtown Eagle 3 North Minturn to and base of Battle Mountain 4. Battle Mountain to Red Cliff 5. Dotsero to Gypsum 6 Gypsum to Glenwood Canyon Priorities for Shared Road improvements: To resolve safety issues on shared road improvements, the following f local Dads for tinning brecord f o walki g pa in this planning process, some of them frequent us believe to be the highest priorities for widened shoulders, bike lanes or bike routes on the primary local travel routes through the length of the Eagle Valley: Righ 1. Avon to Edwards 2, Eagle to Gypsum 3. Edwards to Wolcott 4. Wolcott to Eagle 5. Gypsum to Dotsero Righwav 24: 1. Minturn to Red Cliff Iltiighwav 131: 1. Wolcott to State Bridge - widened shoulders Other Malrr Raadwa : 2. North and South Vail Frontage Roads Park North Frontage Road s shoulders 3, Pedestrian Bridge to Main Vail Roundabout o 4. Brush ek Road sh . Lake C rere oulde s and/or separated trail 6. Colorado River Road - shoulders "Share the Road" Sign Priorities: 1. Highway 6 from Gypsum to Glenwood Canyon 2. Lake Creek Road 3. Brush Creek Road 4, Highway 131 All local includes widening roads administrated by town or country government should be`e th asphalt t c or e issue, cycled asphalt when improvements are under consideration. This im roved signing, removing hazards such as grates, ditches, drop -offs, revised striping and timing chip (rotom�ll), p seal projects to accommodate other users besides vehicles. CHAPTER 3 • Planning Maps for the Eagle Valley Regional Trails System • C. Edwards trailside park Planned trail route near Dowd Junction Planned trail route from Mintum to Dowd Junction Riverwalk pedestrian bridge in Edwards Trail at Eagle River Villas in Eagle Old Highway 24 near Giiman Hurd Lane trail in Avon CHAPTER 4 n Trail Design and Construction Standards Introduction Core Trail of Riverwalk in Edwards This chapter includes recommended standards for design and construction of the Regional Core Trail and connecting Spur Trails that are separated from roadway and offer a transportation option and recreation opportunity. These trails are intended for use by the public. Also addressed in this section are standards for unpaved trails, private trails, sidewalks, and safely sharing roadways with non- motorized uses. Fundamentals of Trail Design These standards are based primarily on the 1999 guidelines from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) for the development of bicycle facilities, particularly their recommendations regarding shared use paths and shared Roadways. Several other studies and standards resources were consulted in the formulation of this chapter as well (see References, Appendix C) . In addition to following the detailed design recommendations, implementation of this plan should reflect several basic design philosophies. In developing the route for the Core Trail, these philosophies were considered: CONSIDER THE POTENTIAL USED RANGE OF ABILITIES, and carrying capacity when designing a trail segment. Trail width, slope, surface and accessibility determine the type of trail user (e.g. read bike vs, mountain bike) and overall carrying capacity (e.g. E' trail vs. 10' trail). The Core Trail project, for example, is being designed with a certain user in mind a family on a bike ride with children either in a burley or on their own bikes. That image helps define the level of safety, grade, design speed, and overall quality of experience. 2. LOCATE TRAILS IN THE MOST EFFICIENT, DIRECT TRAVEL ROUTE WHERE POSSIBLE except where the purpose of the trail has been determined to be primarily scenic and recreational. 3. DESIGN TO AVOID OR MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS by not encroaching upon wetlands or riparian corridors, critical habitat areas, and erosive landforms. Follow natural contours to minimize cut and fill activities. Meander around fragile or established features. Make every effort to preserve existing vegetation. If environmental impacts are unavoidable, mitigate with proven successful methods. Where possible, utilize areas of existing disturbance such as utility line easements, abandoned rail corridors or ditches. Ch. 4 Pg. 1 4. MINIMIZE OR MITIGATE IMPACTS OF TRAIL UPON ADJACENT LANDOWNERS. Some trail sections may be in close proximity to residential, commercial, industrial or agricultural development. These conflicts must be identified as part of the analysis for each trail segment. Mitigation measures shall be identified and may include but are not limited to realignment, fencing, berming, and screening. This aspect of the trails segment analysis and design is very important to the community success of the system, The "good neighbor" policy is particularly important during the construction period. 5. MAXIMIZE SCENIC VIEWS. Site the alignment to view scenic features while actively using the trail and at rest stops. 6. CONSIDER SAFETY IN ALL LEVELS OF SITING AND DESIGN. Safety is the primary focus of the following_ recommended design standards. 7. DESIGN FOR EASE OF USE AND NAVIGATION. Keep construction (uniform surface type and width) and accessories (signs, striping, lighting, striping, trailheads) consistent throughout the system to promote an image of reliability and ease of use. 8. DESIGN FOR EASE OF MAINTENANCE. If possible, avoid constructing trail sections through areas of poor drainage, unstable soils, rock or snow slide areas, through shaded icy spots, immediately adjacent to winter sanded roadways, vehicular use areas or snow storage sites, or in areas of mature vegetation that is prone to deadfall, debris or surface roots. Consider vandalism susceptibility and prevention when selecting materials and accessories (lighting, bollards, furniture, etc.). g. DESIGN AS A FOUR - SEASON TRAIL, if possible, in the most heavily populated areas. This will require prior commitment to winter maintenance by the managing agency and mitigatable wildlife issues. 0 Design Standards For Trails In certain cases, deviation from these recommended standards should be allowed by the managing jurisdiction where safety or user experience are not compromised, and the rationale for the deviation is defensible. For example, narrowing the core trail to less than the recommended width in areas where there are exceptional property or environmental impacts may be allowable if minimized to the greatest extent possible. For more specific guidance or for items not addressed in the following standards, consult the most current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and Colorado Department of Transportation guidelines. Trail Width: 10 feet wide for the majority of the Core Trail System for medium levels of use by a variety of user types, with 1 to 2 foot clear areas, graded for drainage, on each side of the trail. 8 feet wide for Spur Trail sections connecting to the Core Trail, or on other public trails where traffic is expected to be moderate, even on typical peak days during peak hours, and there are safe opportunities to pass. Provide 1 to 2 foot clear areas, graded for drainage on each side of the trail. Ch. 4 Pg. 2 TYPICAL TRAIL CROSS SECTION 1,p• 10CROSS ' BIQE SL ASPHALT BIKE PATH 1.0' 5'FIOULOER SHOULDER tl 2x uIN O 2% MIN 2% OPE • 12 feet wide for trail sections with expected heavy use by a variety of user types (pedestrians, bicycles, occasional maintenance vehicles, cycling two abreast, roller skaters), with 1 to 2 foot clear areas graded for drainage on each side of the trail. • For any width of trail listed above, where demand exists and budget allows, a 3 to 5 foot soft surface trail is recommended for separate jogging use, either immediately adjacent to the trail or separation. Adjacent Slopes 0 • Adjacent uphill slopes, 3:1 preferred, 1:5:1 maximum Adjacent downhill slopes, 3:1 preferred, 2:1 maximum. Railing, fence or dense landscape barrier required for greater than 2:1 slopes. Surfacing: A minimum of 3 inches Bituminous Asphalt over 6 inches of compacted C ©OT Class 6 aggregate base course (ABC) over a compacted subgrade. A soils report is advisable to determine appropriate pavement and subrnaterial thickness. Concrete trails are encouraged when feasible and constructed with 4 inches of reinforced 3,000 psi concrete over 6 inches of compacted CBOT Class 6 ABC. In areas prone to erosion or flood, concrete may be required. Transitions between different surfacing types (e.g. new asphalt to existing asphalt, asphalt to concrete, asphalt to base course) should be flush with no more than a 114" differential. Compaction: • All asphalt, base course (including shoulders) and subgrade material to be compacted to 95% of maximum density obtained at optimal moisture content as determined by AASHTO T180 -57, Method Ch. 4 Pg. 3 BASE COURSE SHOULDER NMlai!MUM G" BASE COURSE CRUSHED STONE COMPACTED TO 95% OPTIMUM. A, Testing_ Subgrade and base course must be dry and free of frost when asphalt is placed. Shoulders may require additional treatment to retain compaction and methods include adding lime or sakrete to base course in areas where shoulders are exceptionally prone to erosion. 0 Design Speed: 20 mph for the paved trail specified abovel1 5 mph for unpaved paths Bicyclists can travel faster than 20 mph but it is inappropriate to do so in a mixed -use setting. Meanders may be used to encourage reduced bicycle speed. Raised surface methods, such as speed bumps and upright barriers, such as bollards, should not be used to reduce speeds as they create more of a hazard than a deterrent. (See Barriers section below). Sightnistance: • All alignments should incorporate safe sight distance in compliance with the AASHTO design guidelines, especially at narrow sections, intersections, curves and shall give special attention to wet, shaded, unpaved or otherwise hazardous sections. Minimum Curare Radius: The recommended minimum curve radius for a 20 mph design speed is 36 feet, based on a 15 degree lean angle. is When substandard radius curves must be used on shared use trails because of right -of -way, topographical or other considerations, standard curve warning signs and supplemental pavement markings should be installed. It is advisable to widen the trail in order to increase the lateral space available to bicyclists as they lean to the inside of the turn. Cross Slope: • 2 - 3% maximum cross slope, may be increased to up to 5% on curves but overall disabled access should be evaluated as part of the design decision. Grade: 2% to 3% slope preferred, 1% acceptable but drainage should be considered. Grades on shared use trails should be kept to a minimum; especially on long inclines. Grades should be kept to 5% or less as much as possible. On shared use paths, where terrain dictates, designers may need to exceed the 5% grade recommended for bicycles on some short section_ • Ch. 4 Pg. 4 Accassihilily; • The summarized American with Disabilities Act trail guidelines adopted in 2000, are as follows and should be accommodated. This list also includes AASHTO standards for the category of 5% to 8.33% which are not specifically addressed by the ADA standards. • 5 % grade or less for any distance • 5 -6% for up to 800 feet (per AASHTO) • 7% for up to 400 feet (per AASHTO) • Up to 8.33% grade for 200 feet maximum. Resting intervals no more than 200 apart. • Up to 10 % for 30 feet maximum. Resting intervals at 30 feet. • Up to 12.5% maximum. Resting intervals at 10 feet. • No more than 30% of the trail may exceed a running slope of 8.33% • Passing Space: provided at least every 1000 feet where trail width is less than 5 feet. • Signs shall provided indicating the length of the accessible trail segment. Good signing at trail access points that identify situations that could be difficult to negotiate will help users determine for themselves whether to use the trail. ADA guidelines recognize that in some cases it may be difficult to meet the recommended standards.. It is understood that it may be very difficult to build fully accessible trails but every effort should be made in design and construction to accommodate disabled access. • Excessive grades may be mitigated by widening the trail, signing to alert trail users to grades and allowable speeds, providing longer sight distance and wider clearance, installing railings, or incorporating short switchbacks where possible. Equestrian Trails /Bride Paths: Bridle paths separated from paved shared use paths are recommended because of potential conflicts between horses, bicycles, dogs, in -line skaters and pedestrians Recommended width is 5 to 8 foot, graded to drain properly. Surfacing should be soil, fine gravel, crusher fines or wood chips. Recommended separation between a paved shared use trail and a bridle path is 10 feet or greater. Standard Trail Easement Width: • 20 foot minimum for off -road, paved trail • 30 foot minimum for combination paved, off -road trail and unpaved, equestrian trail • It may be acceptable to request less than 20 feet, depending on the location. • Abandonment of any easement required for a portion of the trail system may be requested by the property owner or initiated by tfie local government if it is determined that the easement and trail segment are no longer necessary as part of the trails system. Ch. 4 Pg. 5 Clearance: Lateral: 1 foot to 2 foot graded clear area with a maximum 5:1 slope should be maintained adjacent to both sides of the trail. 3 feet or more is desirable to provide clearance from trees, poles, retaining wails, fences, railings, guardrails or other lateral obstructions. STCIPi • Where the trail is adjacent to ditches or slopes down steeper than 3:1, a wider separation should be considered. A 5 foot separation from the edge of pavement to top of slope is desirable. Depending on height of embankment, and condition at bottom, a physical barrier such as a railing, fence or dense shrubbery may need to be installed (see Railings /Fences section below). Vertical: 10 feet or higher is optimum, 12 feet minimum for equestrians for passing under structures or vegetation. For existing structures (i.e. bridges, underpasses) with substandard clearances, hazard signs and dismount signs should be posted where necessary. Railings/Fences: • 54 inches (4.5 feet) minimum height recommended. Smooth surfaces recommended including sanded and painted steel or wood or vinyl coated chain link. • An attractive yet safe railing and fence design should be selected for the Core Trail and used consistently throughout. Railing or fence should extend 4 to 8 feet beyond the edge of the drop -off or hazard area. • Railing ends should be flanged or flared to prevent users from colliding with the exposed of the railing. The flanged end also helps to visually tie the railing to the site (also see Bridge section below). Separation from Adjacent Roadway: 10 foot minimum, wider separation strongly recommended. 5 foot minimum from parking lot and trail separation, • In extreme cases of less than a 10 foot separation, a barrier a maximum of 42 inches high such as guardrail or shrubs may be required. Attention must be paid to sight distance during design and placement. Other structures designed to withstand vehicular impact may also be used, upon review and approval. f,..J • Ch- 4 Pg. 6 Trail and Bead or Driveway Intersections: • Crossings should be 90 degrees and feature a flat approach. • Trail users should come to a complete stop at appropriately signed intersections. Signs will include Stop Ahead, Stop and for minor driveways (i.e. single family residences), Yield. • Establish exceptionally clear sight lines to and from roadway for safe crossing. Remove or mitigate visual obstructions. • For crossings of high traffic roadways, consult AASHTO for detailed guidelines. Traffic control devices such as timed or user - activated signals may be necessary at certain crossings. • Where possible, trail crossings should be placed at existing stop- signed or signalized road intersections. • Commercial or Industrial driveways that are paved as part of the trail should be evaluated to determine need for thicker pavement to withstand higher loading, a wider path section to prevent edge raveling and curve radius to prevent scattering of road shoulder gravel across the path by motor vehicles. • Overpass or underpass structures, while the optimum method of crossing high volume roadways, are often cost prohibitive. If an overpass or underpass becomes a real option, consult AASHTO and CDOT standards (see section on Underpasses /Tunnels below). 0 Drainage: Sloping in one direction at an optimum of 2% (5% on curves) is preferred over crowning to provide drainage and simplify construction and maintenance (see section on Cross Slope above), Hillside trails may require drainage swales on the uphill side to intercept downhill drainage. Swales should be located outside of the shoulder area. An exception to this recommended guideline is when the area available to construct the trail is very constrained and the trail must be narrowed for a distance. The uphill shoulder could be deleted and the uphill disturbed area revegetated to the edge of asphalt. The revegetation will control some drainage and debris coming from the uphill side prior to sheet flowing across the path. Design should include retention of natural groundcover or revegetation to aid in drainage retention. Catch basins and cross culverts may be necessary. Culvert openings should be protected and hidden if possible. facings are recommended but flared end sections shall Stone be used at minimum. Clearance between the edge of the culvert and the trail surface should be 3 feet so as not to create a hazard. • When box culverts are used as part of the trail system, drainage must be considered in design or retrofitting. Ch. 4 Pg. 7 Erosion Control: • Erosion control regulations and best management practices adopted by the pertinent jurisdiction shall be adhered to during the trail construction. 0 Barriers to Motor Vehicles: • Shared use trails may occasionally need some form of physical barrier at highway intersections to prevent unauthorized motor vehicles on the trail. Because barriers are sometimes a hazard, they should only be used where encroachment by vehicles is a chronic problem, enforcement is difficult and they can be clearly seen by trail users. • Common barrier types in include bollards, boulders, low landscaping, plastic breakaway posts or fencing and should be at least 3 feet tall. Barrier selected should be vandal resistant and able to be moved. • Bollards should be of the removable, lockable variety to permit authorized vehicles. • All barriers other than landscaping should be reflectorized for visibility and a painted a bright color for daytime visibility. Striping an envelope around the barrier is recommended. • Barriers should be spaced to allow wheelchairs and bicycles with trailers to pass through. utility Structures: • Utility structures such as valve boxes, manhole frames, lids and grates, sanitary sewer clean outs and storm drain inlets shall be located outside of the trail corridor. If they cannot be removed, they shall be flush with pavement, non -skid and bicycle safe lateral clearance standards noted above. All other utility structures should conform to the Bridges: New bridges should be 2 to 4 feet wider than approaching path and a minimum of 12 feet for shared pedestrian /bicycle bridges. The top horizontal rail should be a minimum of 54 inches high (4.5 feet). Rub (hand) railings mounted below should be a minimum of 42 inches high (3.5) and of a smooth material such as sanded, stained wood or steel. Bridge railings should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond end of bridge and flare out away from the bridge and match the approach grades. Longer approach rails between 12 to 15 feet are recommended when the connecting path is on an incline. • Ch. 4 Pg. 8 { • New bridges should be built for weight loads associated with maintenance vehicles, a minimum of 10,000 pounds with the weight limit posted. 12,500 pounds is preferred. • Decking shall be of a high friction type and laid perpendicular to the direction of travel. Joints should be bicycle safe. Drainage off of the bridge must be considered in the bridge design. • Bridges shall be designed in accordance with local flood regulations and other pertinent state and federal regulations. Clearance for rafting and other watercraft should be considered in the site design_ • Highway bridges undergoing renovation or reconstruction should be designed to accommodate bike traffic if a bike lane or route leads bikes to that bridge. Underpasses or runnels: • Minimum width should be 10 feet with 12 feet or more desirable. • Minimum overhead clearance should be 10 feet or more if vehicles will use the structure, 8 feet is sufficient if no vehicles likely. • Walls should be coated with epoxy paint for easy graffiti removal. • Include gutters on one or both sides for drainage. • Where possible, vandal resistant lighting should be mounted on the walls_ • Signs shall be mounted in the approach zones to warn of hazards. • All of the above should be considered in retrofitting existing underpasses (e.g. box culverts) but if minimum width and height will remain substandard, reflectors and black and yellow hazard symbols and signs should be pasted. At -Grade Railroad Crossings: Crossings are typically subject to specific standards per railroad policy and state regulations. Signs, signalization, widths and type of crossing will typically be specified in the railroad's conditions of approval. In making a proposal for a crossing, design the trail crossing at a right angle to the railroad tracks and with a flat approach (0.5% to 2 %) to the crossing. Lighting: • Lighting of the entire Core Trail system is not proposed. However, lighting of certain sections that will service commuting traffic or are areas of potential hazard or conflict (tunnels, road intersections) should be considered. Placement should be considerate of adjacent land uses. Ch. 4 Pg. 9 Light standards should be at a scale appropriate for pedestrian uses (e.g. 12' high posts with lights shielded to shine downward upon the path), meet minimum clearances and be vandal proof if possible. Maintenance responsibility for the lights must be established prior to installation. Style of lighting fixtures should be remain consistent throughout the system. signs: The Core Trail system is proposed to pass through several jurisdictions and consistency of sign type and design becomes an important issues in order to promote reliability and continuity particularly since one goal of the system is to link existing and proposed trail systems together. Construction plans for each trail segment should include specifications for location and type of signs necessary for the specific trail. There are generally three types of sign types: Safety (Caution or Regulatory), Etiquette, and Information. 18" x 18 ", 24" x 24" or 12" x 18" are the standard sizes for trail safety signs, per the MUTCD. ft Regarding the Core Trail Sign Plan. NO MOTOR VEHICLES • The current Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) should be followed as closely as possible for standard sizes, colors, and shapes but custom signs are sometimes necessary to address a specific trail situation. • Trailhead signs should be coordinated for similar design and content along the trail with the pertinent jurisdictions. • A Core Trail symbol should be affixed to select signs at various intervals along the Core Trail route to promote the identity and continuity of the trail system e.g. 4" x 4" rounded edge square with name of trail - The Eagle Valley Trail - inscribed. • Post mile markers approximately every two miles in rural areas and every mile in developed areas. However, sign clutter should be avoided and the mile marking program should not commence until several long sections (3+ miles) have been established. Signs to community centers should be installed at select locations along the Core Trail including mileage. • • Ch. 4 Pg. 10 � r • Locations where the trails ends temporarily, informational signs should be installed to direct users to the safest route through the gap in the system • Signs should be installed in a consistent manner along the trail according to the following specification for free standing podes. Low profile monument signs may be appropriate in certain locations such as for trailhead signs or at activity center entry points. Signs will be placed to avoid conflicts with vegetation growth. Each trail segment should be evaluated for appropriate signs, such as the following commonly used caution or regulatory signs: Slow, Hill Ahead, Curve symbols, Posted Speed, No Motor Vehicles, Railroad /Road Crossing, Trail Narrows, Narrow Bridge, Bridge and Trail May be Icy, Rough Pavement, Low Clearance, Trail Ends Ahead, Trail Ends, Stop, Yield, Signs advising motor vehicles of trail (Watch for Pedestrians or Trail Crossing). • Common information and etiquette signs are. Bikes Yield to Peds, etc_, }beep to the Right, Name of Trail, Bridge, River or Creek, Share the Trail, Directional Signs to Towns, Activity Centers, City Limits, Please No Trespassing, Trailhead Signs_ • Off -road paved trails that end and become either shared road trails or unpaved trails should include a Trail Ends warning sign. Depending on the particular location, a directional sign may also be warranted to direct users to the next section of trail. Sign Installation; • Core Trail sign installation should remain consistent with the following installation specifications: • Signs should be mounted on 4" by 4" treated posts that are either pretreated or coated with sealant prior to installation. • Post will be six feet measured from ground level. • Post should be buried at least 2 to 3 feet in the ground. • Top of backfill should be ramped slightly away from post for drainage. • Mix dry cement into backfill before filling in the hole And tamp. • Top of sign shall be flush with top of post. • Sign will affixed with lag bolts, vandalism proof variety recommended. Trail Accessories: • See Appendix B for styles selected for the Core Trail System. Place furniture to meet the recommended clearance of 3' feet or farther from the trail. • Bicycle racks - at trailheads and access points. Developers shall be encouraged to provide bicycle racks where applicable. • Furniture - Benches and picnic tables should be made of durable material, in a style that reflects the natural setting and is consistent throughout the system. Benches should be placed at rest areas and at trailheads along the trail. • Trash containers - located in rest areas and at trailheads, made of a durable material and consistent in style throughout the system. Ch. 4 Pg. 11 1 1 4 r Trash containers _ located in rest areas and at trailheads, made of a durable mate,ial and consistent in style throughout the system. • Restrooms - locate facilities or direct trail to public restroom facilities at 10 mile intervals. Design should be easily maintained, environmentally sound and reflect the natural surroundings (e.g. no blue plastic "porto- potties "). • Drinking Water - facilities or access to potable water every 10 miles. Where restrooms with a water and sewer system are proposed a spigot, handpump or post type is acceptable. Pet Waste "Stations" - dispenser for bags to pick up pet waste so not left on trail or in shoulders. Trailhead or Rest Area Design: Trailhead sites should be selected based on access, least impacts on adjacent neighborhood, ease of maintenance and no environmental impacts. Parking lots, restrooms, signs, etc, should be sited so as not to obstruct scenic views. Construction materials should blend in with the adjacent surroundings. Rest areas along the trail should be located in areas of likely need, such as at the end of an incline or at a shady spot after an exposed stretch, but they should also be considerate of the view opportunities_ Trailhead accommodations will vary but the following items should be considered: • trailhead sign • parking • bike racks • trash receptacles • benches • picnic tables • landscaping • restrooms • drinking fountains • Trailhead Signs should include pertinent usable or interesting information such as a trail map with distance information, Trail Rules, Contact Information, Flora and Fauna information, Trail Contact Information (e.g. for comments or reporting maintenance or enforcement issues), Special Considerations i.e. handicapped accessibility, hazards or interpretation, rest room or rest area locations Landscaping: • Construction plans for each trail segment shall address landscaping. Prominent existing vegetation shall be indicated on the plan in relation to the trail location and protected in the field for preservation. Areas of landscaping for mitigation or general beautification (e.g. around rest areas or restrooms) shall also be identified on the plans with emphasis on native, low maintenance species. Supplemental irrigation to aid in plant establishment and first year survival must be specified on the plans. • All areas disturbed during construction shall be revegetated with an appropriate groundcover seed mix • (see Appendix C for sample mixes). Steep areas may require additional stabilization (fiber matting, etc.) during plant establishment. Ch. 4 Pg. 12 r ' i T Pavement Striping: 0 . In areas where traffic is steady or high at peak hours, a center stripe is recommended_ • Center striping is also recommended on curved or straight inclines to manage flow of uphill and downhill traffic. • Crosswalks should be painted at all road and major driveway intersections. Maintenance and Emergency Access: = if new trails are designed with proper clearances, bridge weight loads and trail width, trail maintenance should be efficient and relatively uncomplicated. However, special attention should be paid to maintenance vehicle access points and turnarounds and turning radius for vehicles through trail curves. Emergency Access points should be identified during planning for construction of each segment, if a not within 100 feet of a roadway. Standard Specifications and General Notes for Trail Construction Plans: Available from the ECO Trails Program for inclusion in construction plan set. Use of similar construction techniques and management practices is encouraged among jurisdictions cooperating in the trail building program outlined by this plan. 0 As -built Construction Drawings: Shall be required at the discretion of the particular jurisdictions. As- builts should at a minimum include the surveyed final path location described by centerline or edges, culverts with inverts and sign location and type. Private `trails: • Designers of trails which are contained within a new or existing development and are for the exclusive use of its residents or owners are encouraged to use these standards for design. Unpaved Trails: • These standards are for trails not built adjacent to a paved trail but built as independent hiking, biking or equestrian trails in the frontcountry or backcountry. • Desired minimum width is 3 feet. Overhead clearance for bike use is 8 feet. Maximum sustained grades should not exceed 10 %, for stretches of less than 150 feet, grades should not exceed 15 %. • Include structures necessary to prevent erosion of surface material, such as concrete pans at cross drainage locations and water bars or short paved sections on slopes. Accessibility to these types of trails should be evaluated per current ADA standards and designed accordingly. Ch. 4 Pg. 13 r Shared Roadways: For the purposes of this plan, shared roadways refers to essentially all roads in all jurisdictions in Eagle County except those where non - motorized users such as pedestrians and bicyclists are expressly prohibited. • Non- motorized users are typically not in the vehicle travel lanes but on the edges of the road platform in the shoulder, or on bike lanes or a bike route. These terms are often used interchangeably, but are defined as follows by the Colorado Department of Transportation Bikeway Design Guidelines: Bike Lane: "A portion of a roadway which has been designated by striping, signing and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists ". Bikes lanes should be incorporated where possible into new street design or retrofit of existing streets. The minimum width of any bike lanes should be 5 Feet excluding the gutter pan. Additional widths are desirable when substantial truck traffic, parallel parking, speeds over 55 mph or curves are present. Bike lanes should travel in one direction with traffic. Two way bike lanes on same side of roadway are not recommended. Consult current AASHTO or local road standards for bike lane specifications. Bike Roots: °A roadway distinguished by (bicycle- related) signs only, which provides continuity to other bicycle facilities, or is designated as the proposed, (bicycle) route through high demand corridors ". Each jurisdiction is encouraged to incorporate bike routes into their comprehensive streets plan. ' Establishing bike routes, that are fairly direct, with relatively few stop signs or intersections and well signed, can reduce hazards to bicyclists on other shared routes. Signs and symbols painted on the road surface will also improve vehicle awareness of alternative modes of transportation. Shoulders often function as a de -facto bike lane or bike route and should be inspected for hazards prior to establishing a route (manholes, sewer inlets, blind driveways, etc.). Bike routes should travel in one direction with traffic. Incorporating bike routes into a streets system is typically easier than a bike lanes system because it utilizes existing pavement. Consult current AASHTO or local road standards for bike route specifications. Shoulder: "That portion of a roadway exclusive of the travel lane designated and ordinarily used for vehicle travel. It is that portion of the roadway to the outside of the white line. Colorado Bicycle Law 42- 4- 106.5 -(5) states "...where a paved shoulder suitable for bicycle riding is present, persons operating bicycles shall ride on the paved shoulders." A paved shoulder is a de facto bikeway when present, but is different from a Bike Lane in that it is not signed nor meant exclusively for the use of bicycles ". Shoulders should be provided and maintained on roads where is anticipated that cyclists will ride, pedestrians may walk and no off road facilities are available. A minimum of four feet of shoulder width is recommended, 6 feet or greater is preferred. If rumble strips are present, that area should be not be included in the above widths. If funding or right -of -way is limited, shoulder widening should occur first on uphill sections of roadway. Consult AASHTO or local road standards for additional specifications. Sidewalks: Sidewalks are typically intended for pedestrians, built in conjunction with a roadway and generally six feet wide or less. Bicyclists are typically not legally permitted on sidewalks. Sidewalks are not considered safe for higher speed use because of width, pedestrian conflicts, copious intersections, poor sight distance and inconsistent maintenance levels. Ch. 4 Pg. 14 • Sidewalk design standards are not addressed in this plan. Sidewalks are encouraged throughout the developed areas of Eagle County as conduits to and from neighborhoods, community centers and other activity areas. Direct sidewalk connections to the Core Trail and Spur Trail system are also encouraged. Consult the pertinent Town or County improvement standards for sidewalk requirements.. The requirement for a sidewalk system (generally 6' wide or less) or a separated trail system (T wide or greater) or a combination of both shall be the decision of the individual jurisdiction. Retrofitting Existing Facilities: Non - compliance with the recommended standards listed here does not imply that an existing trail facility is unsafe. It may be very serviceable for the level of use or compared to other trail systems. These standards are primarily a guideline for new trail development. Retrofitting of trail segments and structures throughout the entire system is encouraged over time. Retrofitting will most often apply to these items: curb ramps, clearance to obstructions or marking as unavoidable hazards, signs, intersections, edge drop offs, bridges without bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Wildlife Protection: Trails improperly located or designed can have negative impacts upon resident wildlife including the initial impacts of construction disturbance, trampling of habitat, fragmentation of habitat and introducing humans into areas previously not accessible. The Colorado Division of Wildlife recommends the following design and management principles for the regional trail system to help reduce impacts on wildlife. The intent is to cause no significant impacts on our local wildlife population and if impacts are not mitigatable, the route should not be pursued: • Try to locate trails in already disturbed areas • Disturb as narrow an area as possible when constructing the trail • Consider screening trails with vegetation in known habitat areas • Try to curb opportunities to create casual spurs off of the main trail, particularly along stream banks • Be particularly sensitive to wildlife routes to local water sources and avoid crossing those routes • Include interpretive displays along the trail about respecting wildlife and habitat • Trails traveling through winter range should be closed during the critical survival period of December 1 to April 30. If a trail is adjacent to a major roadway, closure may not be necessary • Dogs should be restricted or not allowed in sensitive habitat areas • Railing and fences should be constructed to not impede wildlife movement • Riparian corridors and wetlands should be protected during and after construction, with no negative impacts to these prime habitats • Bear proof trash cans should be installed if trash cans are included trailhead or trail rest area facilities • Ch. 4 Pg. 15 . CHAPTER 5 The Railroad Corridor as a Trail Corridor The intent of this chapter is to identify how the rail corridor, if available for lease or purchase in all or part, could be incorporated into the core trail route. A range of potential scenarios is described below and each section of the corridor evaluated for feasibility as either a part of the core trail route or replacing the core trail route. Background The Union Pacific Railroad and Southern Pacific Railroad were approved for merger in 1997 by the federal government's Surface Transportation Board (STB). Included in the merger application was a request to abandon the 179 -mile Tennessee Pass line from Canon City, Colorado to Sage (Gypsum), Colorado. Operational difficulties associated with the high altitude portion of the line were cited as the major reason for the abandonment request. The merger was approved but the abandonment was not. The STB questioned Union Pacific's ability to reroute traffic from the Tennessee Pass line to other track lines north and south of Colorado. The STB stated that they would reconsider the abandonment after the traffic rerouting had successfully occurred. Despite solving problems associated with that transition, UP has opted to not resubmit their request for abandonment of the Tennessee Pass line because of concerns about future demands for service and issues related to the Moffat Tunnel near Winter Park, Colorado. At this time, the portion of the line through Eagle County remains wholly under the ownership of Union Pacific Railroad (UP). Options for Trail Use of the Rail corridor Each of the options defined below is entirely dependent on approval action from UP as current owners of the corridor. As of October, 2000, representatives stated that the company is not interested in selling the entire corridor at this point in time. However, if their position were to change at some time in the near (1 -5 years) or long term (5+ years), the following options could become possibilities: Ilptlon 1: Railroad sells to another railroad or non - railroad private sector owner. Impact on Core Trail Plan: The Core Trail can be constructed without using the rail corridor, but along many sections would be more expensive and less direct than if railroad corridor were available. The Core Trail Plan does depend on obtaining Ch. 5 Pg. i permission to cross the railroad corridor in a minimum of four locations so cooperation from the railroad or other owner is critical for implementation. If a private, non - railroad party were to acquire ownership, negotiations for purchase of sections, edges or crossings would occur with that entity. Option 2: Railroad corridor is acquired by state or local government and the existing rails remain intact for future commuter rail use and some possible freight traffic. Impact on Core Trail Plan: There are many locations along the length of the track line through Eagle County where rail and trail can share the corridor. There are other sections where it is extremely difficult or impossible. The section by section analysis below addresses those locations. Option 3: Railroad corridor is acquired by state or local government and the rails are removed but future rail transit use is planned. Trail shares the corridor. Impact on Core Trail Plan: Same comments as above. Option 4: Railroad corridor is acquired by state or local government and rails are permanently removed with no future plans for rail. Bridges can be easily retrofitted if only for trail use. All other constraints can be addressed with the exception of the contamination and hazard issues that exist in the area of the Gilman mines. Impact on Core Trail: Trail could be constructed directly on existing rail platform. From a trails implementation viewpoint, this is the ideal scenario. Option 5: Railroad agrees to sell selected portions of the corridor to local government for purposes of completing critical sections that are difficult to construct along the non -rail core trail alignment. 0 Impact on Core Trail Plan: This option would allow bottlenecks in the core trail route to be resolved. By purchasing outside edges of the corridor in key locations, the rail operations would not be impacted and the trail implementation would not be curtailed or halted in certain areas such as Avon, Sage to Eagle or Minturn. Summary of options: Option 4, trail on rail corridor after rails removed, is most ideal from a trail building perspective and since is the easiest option to implement, it is not part of the section by section analysis that follows. If at any point in the life span of this plan any of the above options become available, the rail corridor should be employed as the way to close the gaps that remain in the trail system at that time. Option 2 and 3 feature transit options which can blend easily with trails, although a freight component complicates matters. The following summarized analysis identifies issues that would be faced under Option 2 and 3 Trail with Rails; and Option 5, pursuing purchase of narrow corridors on the outside edge of the corridor in the most critical locations. • Ch. 5 Pg. 2 Analysis by Section: The malority of the corridor can accommodate the rail and trail together but in many areas a separation barrier should be installed and in all cases minor and larger bridges will require retrofitting. :7 There are some segments where it is not feasible for the rail and trail to share the corridor due to severe constraints such as steep banks above and/or below the platform, sensitive areas such as wetlands on both sides, or hazard areas such as in Gilman and Belden. In these areas, it would be necessary for the trail to depart the corridor and be located in another alignment in existing road- rights of way or on private property easements. These areas include Eagle -Vail to Minturn North Bridge and Battle Mountain to Red Cliff. The railroad was evaluated from Sage to Red Cliff. Red Cliff to Tennessee Pass was not included in this evaluation because trails in the populated areas are the priority focus of the current version of this trails plan. Each section of railroad corridor was evaluated in the field and with railroad maps for widths (varies from 75 feet to 250 feet), terrain constraints. demand for trail from the surrounding population, cost to mitigate shared rail impacts or costs to retrofit for trail, comparative cost of the non -rail core trail route, and ability to transition back and forth from the rail corridor to the core trail, if necessary. Sage to Downtown Eagle [Eby creek Road): Railroad corridor is very conducive to shared use with trail on outer edge of corridor, northern edge best. Rail power lines located on south side from Sage to Brush Creek. Width is 100' for the majority of the distance between Sage and Eagle. There are some short sections of double track line. Obstacles include narrow Brush Creek railroad bridge and Eagle River railroad bridge, bridge over Eby Creek Road and two other small bridges /box culverts along the route. There is high demand by the local population to link Gypsum and Eagle via a trail. Non - railroad Core Trail routes are hampered by timing issues (e.g. airport interchange in 2004, Cooley Mesa Road in 2003) or property ownership issues (e.g. Highway 6 trail near airport)_ Eagle (Eby Creek Road) to Wolcott: The railroad corridor is generally very conducive to shared use with trail on outer edge of corridor, best on the northern edge because of railroad power lines along the south side of tracks. Width varies from 100 feet to 200 feet, with a section of 60 feet on the west side of Red Canyon, but the terrain is relatively flat through the 60 foot wide section. Pockets of wetlands exist on the north side of the tracks, including man -made near irrigated fields and natural wetlands near Milk Creek. Ch. 5 Pg. 3 Small bridges and box culverts do exist along this stretch including one bridge over a perennial stream, Milk Creek. It is possible to retrofit all spans for shared trail use. Closer to Wolcott, a bigger challenge exists to retrofit two Eagle River rail bridge crossings between Milk Creek and Wolcott. Also just west of Wolcott, the rail corridor is constrained by steep slopes on the north side of the river near the BLM campground and across from the Department of Transportation yard. At this time, there is low demand for this trail section for transportation purposes because there is no nearby population center. This section would function primarily as a very scenic recreational route for the foreseeable future_ If the corridor is not available, there are Core Trail route options through planned development in the Red Canyon area east of Eagle. Public land through Red Canyon and into Wolcott could accommodate some sections of the core trail, but in several locations it would have to follow the Highway 6 corridor because of the steep terrain and narrow valley through this area. 0 Wolcott to Edwards: • Ch. 5 Pg. 4 not a population center nearby but it is very likely that Walcott will experience development within the life of this plan and demand for a trail route will increase substantially. Edwards to Avon: If the railroad corridor were to become fully available for public uses, this section would be part of providing a continuous trail experience through the valley. If it is an interim matter of purchasing the outside of edge of the existing corridor to create links between communities, this section is not a high priority for acquisition because a continuous separated trail that parallels Highway 6 and the Eagle River will exist from West Edwards to West Beaver Creek Boulevard in West Avon by mid- 2001. Avon to Eagle -Vail: Use of a few select portions of the rail corridor in Avon would be very helpful in creating a continuous trail through Avon to Nottingham Ranch Road such as near the wastewater treatment plant in West Avon and crossing Avon Road_ Otherwise, a significant portion of the trail through the town of Avon can be realized through development that is planned on land adjacent to the railroad corridor. At least one crossing of the railroad corridor will be necessary to create a continuous system in the Chapel Square area. Because Avon is a population center, the dormant track line already is heavily used by pedestrians. The corridor through Avon is predominantly 100 feet wide with short 200 feet wide sections. The railroad power lines are generally located along the north side of the tracks making the south side more viable for locating the trail. Eagle -Vail to Dowd Junction Pedestrian Bridge: This rail corridor section is seriously constrained by either man -made or natural obstacles including Interstate 70 structures causing narrow underpasses, cliffs, falling rock, steep river banks, retrofit of long railroad bridges and adjacent cut slopes. Widths vary from 100 feet wide to 200 feet wide. • Ch. 5 Pg. 5 Demand is very high for a safe trail route through this narrow area of the valley but if the corridor must be shared with rail, it is impossible except for a few short stretches. The non -rail core trail route in this area is also very difficult and will involve expensive construction but few route options exist through this area. Dowd )unction Pedestrian Bridge to Downtown Minturn: This rail corridor section is physically too narrow for a shared rail and trail location until it intersects with the County Road bridge over the Eagle River. At that point, the rail corridor is wide and level, ranging from 100 feet wide to over 250 feet wide, There are multiple track lines because of the rail switching yard that formerly operated in Minturn but the corridor could be shared and still maintain distance between all of the track lines in place and a trail. The corridor is already used by pedestrians, bicyclists and even vehicles. Demand is high and constraints to construction are minimal. The other Core Trail routes are difficult because of terrain, such as on the Highway 24 side of the Eagle River, or would be relegated to following the right -of -way of the county road on the east side of the railyard. The ideal location for the trail, as reflected on the core trail maps in Chapter 3 is on the western edge of the railroad property, paralleling the Eagle River_ Downtown Minturn to Battle Mountain: At the south end of the railyard, the rail corridor becomes constrained by cliffs on the east side for approximately % mile. It becomes more conducive for shared use after that cliff section and remains viable until west of the Two Elk trailhead area where there is another cliff area. These two sections could possibly be mitigated for shared use (e.g. cantilevered trail or separated by fence) depending on the type of rail use. Otherwise it requires costly sections of trail to be built away from the rail corridor on the hillside benches above- The rail corridor through this portion of Minturn ranges between 100, 200 and 250 feet wide. Demand is potentially high. Dormant corridor already heavily used by local residents walking, driving or snowmobiling. Ch. 5 Pg. 6 � r Rattle Mountain to Red Cliff: Is This section of rail corridor is very dramatic and scenic but also features several types of natural and man -made hazards including cliffs, rock fall, mining shafts, mine building and hazardous or "hot" tailings piles. For much of the distance between the base of Battle Mountain and Red Cliff, there is a track on both sides of the Eagle River which would seem to allow for train traffic to occur on one side while a trail occupies the other side but the issues noted prevent that seemingly simple solution. The corridor through this section is 200 feet wide. The use would be as a recreational route as opposed to transportation although a few hardy citizens may use it to commute to and from Red Cliff in the summer season. Winter use of this section would not be recommended due to avalanche hazards. The other Core Trail route into Red Cliff features it's own set of issues, primarily navigating around or through the abandoned mining town of Gilman, also a hazardous waste site. In this case, the issues associated with the Core Trail route may be easier to overcome than those that accompany the rail corridor down in the canyon. Red Cliff to Tennessee Pass: This section is very scenic and it would function as a recreational route only since it is well removed from population centers. There are sections of the corridor that lend itself to shared use and others that are constrained by adjacent slopes. Additional study would be required on this section, if it were to become available for rail with trail or trail only use. The majority of the corridor through this section is 200 feet wide. Summary of the Rail Corridor Analysis: At this point in time the highest demand for Core Trail completion I in the Minturn to Edwards area and the Gypsum to Eagle area. If the entire rail corridor IS not available, and only narrow edge portions of these individual sections can be obtained (as depicted by the illustration below) from the railroad either by lease or purchase, the recommended priorities for partial acquisition are. 1. Dowd .!unction to Downtown Minturn through the railyard 2. West Avon from West Beaver Creek Boulevard to Avon Road 3. Sage to Downtown Eagle Ch. 5 Pg. 7 If the entire rail corridor is available and it is not financially or physically feasible to develop the trail as one project, the recommended priorities for construction of a trail with or without the tracks left in place are: 1. Dowd Junction to Downtown Minturn 2. West Avon to Avon Road 3. Sage to Downtown Eagle 4. Minturn to Battle Mountain 5_ Wolcott to Edwards 6. Eagle to Edwards Finally, if neither of the two above scenarios materialize within the life span of this plan, at minimum the following at -grade trail crossings are needed to successfully complete the Core Trail on it's non -rail corridor route through the valley: 1. East of Eagle at Red Canyon (convert existing private crossing to public) 2. From Hurd Lane to proposed Village of Avon (new pedestrian only crossing) 3. West of Dowd Junction, across the river from the Colorado Department of Transportation yard (new crossing) • • Ch. 5 Pg. 8 CHAPTER 6 • Core Trail Maintenance Maintenance of the trails systems is essential for safe and enjoyable use. And if not maintained properly over the long term, the infrastructure of the trail system may be become a wasted investment of invaluable financial and natural resources. Spring Clean -up on the Vail Pass Trail The Core Trail Maintenance Program envisioned by this plan is comprised of two basic approaches: 1. A short term maintenance program for the core trail system 2. A long term maintenance program for the core trail system after it has attained some connectivity For the purposes of this plan and it's described system, trails other than the Core Trail and select spur trails, shall be the responsibility of the entity that constructed, currently maintains or otherwise controls that route. It is not the intent of this planning document to recommend a method of maintenance for every paved or unpaved, urban or backeountry trail or neighborhood sidewalk in incorporated and unincorporated Eagle County. The program recommended below applies to the core trail and select spurs only. Recommended Core Trail Maintenance Program Short Term: up to 5 years: Each jurisdiction that is part of cooperative effort to construct the core trail system will be responsible for the maintenance of the portion of the core trail located within their boundaries. Long Term, 5 years + Cooperatively develop a single - entity maintenance program to serve the need for coordinated multi - jurisdictional trail maintenance. Work towards combining equipment needs through the different jurisdictions and hire the necessary staff to handle associated maintenance tasks. Recommended Maintenance Schedule: Sweep trail once a month, starting in April, but sweep sections that are heavily impacted by debris from adjacent road, hillsides, etc. every two weeks as needed. 0 Inspect trail surface, shoulders and structures such as bridges, walls, sign posts, etc. periodically using a checklist, every two weeks is suggested. A meticulous inspection should take place in the spring after the snow has fully melted and the path has been swept for the first time. • Perform weed and vegetation control including mowing up to 2 feet on each side of the trail as needed. 0 • Repair and retrofit trail surface cracks or holes, shoulder erosion, structure damage, etc. or arrange for repair as needed. • Clean culverts as needed. • Install or replace signs and trail furniture as needed. • Empty trash containers as needed. • Remove trash from adjacent ground as needed. • Repaint trail or road crosswalk striping as needed. • Plowing is left up to the discretion of the individual jurisdiction. Seal coating is left up to discretion of the individual jurisdiction but is encouraged every 5 years minimum. Over Considerations: 1 _ The Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority is currently committed to an annual per mile contribution to individual town and county jurisdictions to maintain their sections of core trail, subject to approval by the Authority Board. Authority partners may also request maintenance contributions as necessary for periodic overlays or reconstruction. 2. The Authority will coordinate annual forums with maintenance personnel to review the core trail maintenance program, issues and funding. The towns and county will collectively determine when it is financially feasible to create an independent maintenance entity to care for the entirety of the core trail system. 3_ Annual inspections of the trail should be performed by each jurisdiction to determine potential internal budget issues and Authority trail maintenance funding requests for the following year. 4. Nonpublic sections of the core trail should be converted to public sections through grant of easement to the underlying jurisdiction to eliminate issues of inconsistent or inadequate maintenance and potential loss of access. Trails should be brought into conformance to safety standards prior to acceptance. Endowment for maintenance from the grantor should be sought to defray the additional costs of maintenance for the responsible jurisdiction. Current non- public trail examples include core trail sections in The Edwards Riverwalk, Avon Confluence and along the frontage of Arrowhead in Edwards. 5. Jurisdictions should avoid responsibility for the maintenance of trail easements until a trail has been constructed upon them. Until that time, easement maintenance (weeds, drainage, etc.) if necessary, should be the responsibility of the easement grantor unless otherwise specified by the easement document. 6. In the case of widened shoulder or specially designated bike lanes on Town, County, State or Federal roadways, maintenance should include increased attention to debris clearing, pavement repair of edges and potholes, and scheduling of chip seals. 7. Volunteer maintenance shall be encouraged wherever appropriate. Volunteer efforts may be limited to clean -up of trash, sign and trail accessory placement or vegetation control, but certain minor construction or drainage projects could be undertaken by volunteers at the discretion of the pertinent jurisdiction. 8. Maintenance responsibility should be determined as part of the construction planning process and publicly documented. • I� U • • Appendix A Detailed Cast Estimates by Trail Section TRAIL SECTION GLENWOOD CANYON TO DOTSERO Item Estimated Quantity Units unit Price in Vr 2000 Estimated Cost PLANNING AND DESIGN ROW and Land Purchase AC $0.00 ROW and Land Easement (survey, legal, etc.) EA $0.00 Permit Processing 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Engineering /Design (typ. 12% const. cost) 1 LS $186.00 $186.00 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Bonds and Insurance (typ. 3 %) 1 LS $47.00 $47.00 Mobilization (3K - 5K) 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Clean Up 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Clear and Grub - AC $0.00 Topsoil (Removal and Stockpile) - Cy $0.00 Unclassified Excavation - Cy $0 Embankment - Cy $0.00 Subgrade Grading - Sy $0.00 Base Course, Class 6 - 6" - TN $0.00 Asphalt Pavement - 3" TN $0.00 Topsoil Slopes Cy $0.00 Revegetation - AC $0.00 Traffic Control Signage 6.00 LS $175.00 $1,050.00 Stripping - LF $0. DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION Culvert, CPP - 18" - LF $0.00 End Section, CMP - 18" - EA $0.00 Rip Rap - Cy $0.00 Erosion Control - LS $0.00 STRUCTURES AND SPECIAL FEATURES Guard Rail Railing - LF - $0.00 Guard Rail End Anchors - EA $0.00 Crossing Warning Lights 1.00 EA $500.00 $500.00 RR Crossing (At- Grade) - EA $0.00 Bridges (10' width standard) - LS $0.00 Bridge Abutment and Wing Walls - Cy $0.00 Retaining Walls - SF $0.00 Tunnels - LS $0.00 Relocate Utilities - LS $0.00 INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION Surveying ( typ. 5 %) LS 5205.00 Material Testing (typ. 5 %) LS $205.00 Construction Management (typ, 2 %) LS $82.00 TOTAL PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE $6,775. TOTAL PROJECT CONTINGENCY (15 %) $1,016.0 TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $7,791.00 1 J I TRAIL SECTION DOTSEi~ O TO GYPSUM Item Estimated Quantity Units knit Price in MUM Estimated Cost PLANNING AND DESIGN OW and Land Purchase AC $0.00 ROW and Land Easement (survey, iegai, etc.) EA $0.00i Permit Processing 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.001 Engineering /Design (typ. 12% const_ cost) 1 LS $169,036.00 $169,036.00 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Bonds and Insurance (typ. 3 %) 1 LS $42,259.00 $42,259.00 Mobilization (3K - 5K) 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Clean Uo 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500,00 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Clear and Grub 13.10 AC $2,000.00 $26,200.00 Topsoil (Removal and Stockpile) 2,100.00 CY S5.00 $10,500.00 Unclassified Excavation 850.00 CY S4,50 $3,825.00 Embankment 850.00 CY $2.50 $2,125.00 Subgrade Grading 38,000.00 SY $1.25 '$47,500.00 Base Course, Class 6 - 6" 16,000.00 TN $20.00 $320,000.00 Asphalt Pavement - 3" 5,350.00 TN $50.00 $267,500.00 Topsoil Slopes 2,100.00 CY $7.00 $14,700.00 Revegetation 5.20 AC $4,000.00 $20,800.00 Traffic Controf Signage 57.00 LS $175.00 S9,975,OC tripping 360.00 LF $0.50 $180.00 DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION Culvert, CPP - 18" 855.00 LF $35.00 $29,925.00 End Section, CMP - 18" 114.00 EA $200.00 $22,800.00 Rfp Rap - CY $0.00 Erosion Control 1.00 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 STRUCTURES AND SPECIAL FEATURES Guard Rail Railing 600.00 LF $20.00 $12,000.00 Guard Rail End Anchors 4.00 EA $650.00 $2,600.00 Crossing Warning Lights - EA $0.00 RR Crossing (At-Grade) - EA $0.00 Bridges (Colorado River, RR) 1.00 LS $575,000.00 $575,000.00 Bridge Abutment and Wing Wails - CY $0.00 Retaining Walls 2,000.00 SF $20.00 $40,000.00 Tunnels - LS $0.00 Relocate Utilities - LS $0.00 INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION Surveying ( typ- 5 %) LS $72,769,00 Material Testing (typ. 5 %) LS $72,769.00 Construction Management (typ. 2 %) LS $29,108.00 TAL PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE $1,805,071.00 TAL PROJECT CONTINGENCY (15 %) $270,760.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $2,075,831.00 F f� TRAIL SECTION TOWN OF GYPSUM Item Estimated Quantity 6nlits Uoit Price in Yr 2000 Estimated Cost PLANNING AND DESIGN ROW and Land Purchase AC $0.00 ROW and Land Easement (survey, legal, etc.) EA $0.00 Permit Processing 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Engineering /Design (typ. 12% const. cost) 1 LS $23,991.00 $23,991.00 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Bonds and Insurance (typ. 3 %) 1 LS $5,998.00 $5,998.00 Mobilization (3K - 5K) 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Clean Up 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Clear and Grub 2.40 AC $2,000.00 $4,800.00 Topsoil (Removal and Stockpile) 400.00 CY $5.00 $2,000.00 Unclassified Excavation 500.00 CY $4.50 $2,250.00 Embankment 500.00 CY $2.50 $1,250.00 Subgrade Grading 7,100.00 SY $1.25 $8,875.00 Base Course, Class 6 - 6" 3,000.00 TN $20.00 $60,000.00 Asphalt Pavement - 3" 1,000.00 TN $50.00 $50,000.00 Topsoil Slopes 400.00 CY $7.00 $2,800.00 Revegetation 1.00 AC $4,000.00 $4,000.00 Traffic Control Signage 12.00 LS $175.00 $2,100. Stripping 750.00 LF $0.50 $375. DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION Culvert, CPP - 18" 165.00 LF $35.00 $5,775.00 End Section, CMP - 18" 22.00 EA $200.00 $4,400.00 Rip Rap - CY $50.00 $0.00 Erosion Control 1.00 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 STRUCTURES AND SPECIAL FEATURES Guard Rail Railing 300.00 LF $20.00 $6,000.00 Guard Rail End Anchors 2.00 EA $650.00 $1,300.00 Crossing Warning Lights 2.00 EA $500.00 $1,000.00 RR Crossing (At- Grade) - EA $0.00 Bridges - LS $0.00 Bridge Abutment and Wing Walls - CY $0.00 Retaining Walls 2,000.00 SF $20.00 $40,000.00 Tunnels - LS $0.00 Relocate Utilities - LS $0,00 INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION Surveying ( typ. 5 %) LS $10,521.00 Material Testing (typ. 5 %) LS $10,521.00 Construction. Management (typ. 2 %) LS $4,208.00 TOTAL PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE $261,664. OTAL PROJECT CONTINGENCY (15 %) $39,249.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $300,913.00 TRAIL SECTION GYPSUM TO EAGLE Item Estimated quantity Units Iinit Price in Yr 7000 Estimated east PLANNING AND DESIGN ROW and Land Purchase AC $0.00 ROW and Land Easement (survey, legal, etc.) EA $0.00 Permit Processing 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 Engineering /Design (typ. 12% const. cost) 1 LS $65,450.00 $65,450.00 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Bonds and Insurance (typ. 3 %) 1 LS $16,363.00 $16,363.00 Mobilization (3K - 5K) 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Clean Up 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Clear and Grub 7.40 AC $2,000.00 $14,800.00 Topsoil (Removal and Stockpile) 3,960.00 CY $5.00 $19,800.00 Unclassified Excavation 250.00 CY $4.50 $1,12.5.00 Embankment 250.00 CY $2.50 $625.00 Subgrade Grading 43,200.00 SY $1.25 $54,000.00 Base Course, Class 6 - 6" 1,820.00 TN $20.00 $36,400.00 A sphalt Pavement - 3" 610.00 TN $50.00 $30,500.00 Topsoil Slopes 3,960.00 CY $7.00 $27,720.00 Revegetation 3.70 AC $4,000.00 $14,800.00 Traffic Control Signage 65.00 LS $175.00 $11,375.00 tripping 110.00 LF $0.50 $550 -00 DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION Culvert, CPP - 18" 975.00 LF $35.00 $34,125.00 End Section, CMP - 18" 130.00 EA $200.00 $26,000.00 Rip Rap - CY $0.00 Erosion Control 1.00 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 STRUCTURES AND SPECIAL FEATURES Guard Rail Railing 400.00 LF $20.00 $80,000.00 Guard Rail End Anchors 4.00 EA $650.00 $2,600.00 Crossing Warning Lights - EA $0.00 RR Crossing (At- Grade) 1.00 EA $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Bridges (Brush Creek) 1.00 LS $90,000.00 $90,000.00 Bridge Abutment and Wing Walls - CY $0.00 Retaining Walls - SF $0.00 Tunnels 1.00 LS $150,000.00 $150,000.00 Relocate Utilities - LS $0.00 INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION Surveying ( typ. 5 %) LS $28,314.00 Material Testing (typ. 5 %) LS $28,314.00 Construction Management (typ. 2 %) LS $11,326.00 TAL PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE $703,687.00 OTAL PROJECT CONTINGENCY (15 %) $105,553.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $809,240.00 i TRAIL SECTION TOWN OF EAGLE Item Estimated Quantity Units Unit Price in Yr 2000 Estimated Cost PLANNING AND DESIGN ROW and Land Purchase AC $0.00 ROW and Land Easement (survey, legal, etc.) EA $0.00 Permit Processing 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.00 Engineering /Design (typ. 12% const. cost) 1 LS $99,773.00 $99,773.00 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Bonds and Insurance (typ. 3 %) 1 LS 524,943.00 $24,943.00 Mobilization (3K - 5K) 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Clean Up 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Clear and Grub 3.40 AC $2,000.00 $6,800.00 Topsoil (Removal and Stockpile) 550.00 CY $5.00 $2,750.00 Unclassified Excavation 400.00 CY $4.50 $1,800.00 Embankment 400.00 CY '$2.50 $1,000.00 Subgrade Grading 9,750.00 SY $1.25 $12,187.50 Base Course, Class 6 - 6" 4,100.00 TN $20.00 $82,000.00 Asphalt Pavement - 3" 1,400.00 TN $50.00 $70,000.00 Topsoil Slopes 550.00 CY $7.00 $3,850.00 Revegetation 1.40 AC $4,000.00 $5,600.00 Traffic Control Signage 15.00 LS $175.00 $2,625.00 Stripping 300.00 LE $0.50 $150.0 DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION Cuivert, CPP - 18" 225.00 LF $35.00 $7,875.00 End Section, CMP - 18" 30.00 EA $200.00 $6,000.00 Rip Rap - CY $0.00 Erosion Control 1.00 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 STRUCTURES AND SPECIAL FEATURES Guard Rail Railing 200.00 LF $20.00 $4,000.00 Guard Rail End Anchors 2.00 EA $650.00 $1,300.00 Crossing Warning Lights 1.00 EA $500.00 $500.00 RR Crossing (At- Grade) 1.00 EA $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Bridges (Brush Creek, Eagle River -2) 1.00 LS $390,000.00 $390,000.00 Bridge Abutment and Wing Walls - CY $500.00 $0.00 Retaining Walls 3,000.00 SF $20.00 $60,000.00 Tunnels 1.00 LS $150,000.00 5150.000.00 Relocate Utilities - LS $0.00 INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION Surveying ( typ. 5 %) LS $43,044.00 Material Testing (typ. 5 %) LS $43,044.00 Construction Management (typ. 2 %) LS $17,218.00 TOTAL PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE '$1,069,960.0 TOTAL PROJECT CONTINGENCY (15 %) $160,494. TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE '$1,230,454.00 0 TRAIL SECTION EAGLE (Chambers Road) to WOLCOTT Item Estimated Quantity Units Unit Price in Yr 2000 Estimated Cast PLANNING AND DESIGN QW and Land Purchase AC $0.00 RQW and Land Easement (survey, legal, etc.) EA $0.00 Permit Processing 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.00 Engineering /Design (typ. 12% const_ cost) 1 LS $1 12,740.00 $112,740.00 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Bonds and Insurance (typ. 3 %) 1 LS $28,1'85.00 $28,185.00 Mobilization (3K - 5K) 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Clean Up 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Clear and Grub 14.10 AC $2,000.00 $28,200.00 Topsoil (Removal and Stockpile) 2,300.00 CY $5.00 $11,500.00. Unclassified Excavation 1,000.00 CY $4.50 $4,500.00 Embankment 1,000.00 CY $2.50 $2,500.00 Subgrade Grading 40,800.00 SY $1.25 $51,000.00 Base Course, Class 6 - 6" 17,200.00 TN $20.00 $344,000.00 Asphait Pavement - 3" 5,750.00 TN $50.00 $287,500.00 Topsoil Slopes 2,300.00 CY $7.00 '$16,100.00 Revegetation 5.60 AC $4,000.00 $22,400.00 Traffic Control Signage 30.00 LS $175.00 $5,250.00 Stripping 200.00 LF $0.50 $100.00 DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION uivert, CPP - 18" 930.00 LF $35.00 $32,550.00 End Section, CMP - 18" 124.00 EA $200.00 $24,800.00 Rip Rap - CY $0.00 Erosion Control 1.00 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 STRUCTURES AND SPECIAL FEATURES Guard Rail Railing 650.00 LF $20.00 $13,000.00 Guard Rail End Anchors 4.00 EA $650.00 $2,600.00. Crossing Warning Lights 1.00 EA $500.00 $500.00 RR Crossing (At- Grade) 1.00 EA $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Bridges - LS $0.00 Bridge Abutment and Wing Walls - CY $0.00 Retaining Walls 3,500.00 SF $20.00 $70,000.00 Tunnels - LS $0.00 Reiocate Utilities - LS $0.00 INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION Surveying ( typ. 5 %) LS $48,709.00 Material Testing (typ. 5 %) LS $48,709.00 Construction Management (typ. 2 %) LS $19.484.00 TOTAL PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE $1,209,827.00 ASLOTA PROJECT CONTINGENCY (15 %) $18,148.00 7 0TAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $1,227,975.00 TRAIL SECTION WOLCOTT TO WEST EDWARDS (at Hillcrest Drive Bridge) Item Estimated Quantity Units Unit Price in Tr 2000 Estimated Cast PLANNING AND DESIGN ROW and Lana Purchase AC $0.00. ROW and Land Easement (survey, legal, etc.) EA $0.00 Permit Processing 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 Engineering /Design (typ. 12% const. cost) 1 LS $189,878.00 $189,878.00 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Bonds and Insurance (typ. 3 %) 1 LS $47,469.00 $47,469.00 Mobilization (3K - 5K) 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 Clean Up 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Clear and Grub 6.00 AC $2,000.00 $12,000.00 Topsoil (Removal and Stockpile) 970.00 CY $5.00 $4,850.00 Unclassified Excavation 3,400.00 CY $4.50 $15,300.00 Embankment 3,400,00 CY $2.50 $8,500.00 Subgrade Grading 17,500.00 SY $125 $21,875.00 Base Course, Class 6 - 6" 7,350.00 TN $20.00 $147,000.00 Asphalt Pavement - 3" 2,475.00 TN $50.00 $123,750.00 Topsoil Slopes 970.00 CY $7.00 $6,790.00 Revegetation 2.40 AC $4,000.00 $9,600.00 Traffic Control Signage 27.00 LS $175.00 $4,725.00 Stripping 300.00 LF $0.50 $150. DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION Culvert, CPP - 18" 405.00 LF $35.00 $14,175.00 End Section, CMP - 18" 54.00 EA $200.00 $10,800.00 Rip Rap - CY $0.00 Erosion Control 1.00 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 STRUCTURES AND SPECIAL FEATURES Guard Rail Railing 400.00 LF $20.00 $8,000.00 Guard Rail End Anchors 2.00 EA $650.00 $1,300.00 Crossing Warning Lights 1.00 EA $500.00 $500.00 RR Crossing (At- Grade) - EA $0.00 Bridges (Eagle -2) 1.00 LS $510,000.00 $510,000.00 Bridge Abutment and Wing Walls - CY $0.00 Retaining Walls 34,000.00 SF $20.00 $680,000.00 Tunnels - LS $0.00 Relocate Utilities - LS $0.00 INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION Surveying ( typ. 5 %) LS $81,489.00 Material Testing (typ. 5 %) LS $81,489.00 Construction Management (typ. 2 %) LS $32,596.00 TOTAL PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE $2,023,236. TOTAL PROJECT CONTINGENCY (15 %) $303,485. TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $2,326,721.00 r TRAIL SECTION WEST EDWARDS TO TOWN OF AVON Item Estimated Quantity Units Unit Price in Yr 2000 Estimated Cost PLANNING AND DESIGN and Land Purchase AC $0.00 , ROW OW and Land Easement (survey, legal, etc.) EA $0.00 Permit Processing 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 Engineering/Design (typ. 12 % const, cost) 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Bonds and Insurance (typ. 3 %) 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 Mobilization (3K - 5K) 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 Clean Up 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Clear and Grub - AC $0.00. Topsoil (Removal and Stockpile) - CY $0.00 Unclassified Excavation - CY $0.00 Embankment - CY $0.00 Subgrade Grading - SY $0.00 Base Course, Class 6 - 6" - TN $0.00 Asphalt Pavement - 3" - TN $0.00 Topsoil Slopes - CY $0.00 Revegetation - AC $0.00 Traffic Control Signage - LS $0.00 Stripping LF $0.00 Curb and Gutter LF $0.00 DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION invert, CPP - 18" - LF $0.00 End Section, CMP - 18" - EA $0.00 Rip Rap - CY 30.00 Erosion Control - LS $0.00 STRUCTURES AND SPECIAL FEATURES Guard Rail Railing - LF $0.00 Guard Rail End Anchors - EA $0.00 Crossing Warning Lights - EA $0.00 RR Crossing (At- Grade) EA $0.00 Bridges - LS $0.00 Bridge Abutment and Wing Walls - CY $0.00 Retaining Walls SF $0.00 Tunnels - LS $0.00 Relocate Utilities - LS $0.00 INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION Surveying ( typ. 5 %) LS $0.00 Material Testing (typ. 5 %) LS MOO Construction Management (typ. 2 %) LS $0.00 TOTAL PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE $0.00 TAL PROJECT CONTINGENCY (15 %) $0.00 OTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $0.00 TRAIL SECTION TOWN OF AVON Item Estimated Quantity Units Unit Price in Yr 2000 Estimated Cost PLANNING AND DESIGN ROW and Land Purchase AC $0.00 ROW and Land Easement (survey, legal, etc.) EA $0.00 Permit Processing 1.00 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00. Engineering /Design (typ. 12% coast. cost) 1.00 LS $19,707.00 $19.707.00 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Bonds and Insurance (typ. 3 %) 1.00 LS $4,927.00 $4,927.00 Mobilization (3K - 5K) 1.00 LS $3,000,00 $3,000.00 Clean Up 1.00 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Clear and Grub 2.20 AC $2,000,00 $4,400.00 Topsoil (Removal and Stockpile) 350.00 CY $5.00 $1,750.00 Unclassified Excavation - CY $0.00 Embankment - CY $0.00 Subgrade Grading 6,300.00 SY $1.25 $7,875.00 Base Course, Class 6 - 6" 2,650.00 TN $20.00 $53,000.00 Asphalt Pavement - 3" 900.00 TN $50,00 $45,000.00 Topsoil Slopes 350.00 CY $7.00 $2,450.00 Revegetation 1.00 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 Control Signage 10.00 EA $175.00, $1,750.00 Stripping 3,000.00 LF $0.50 $1,500.0 Curb & Gutter 2,500.00, LF $17.00 $42,500. DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION Culvert, CPP - 18" - LF $0.00 End Section, CMP - 18" - EA $0.00 Rip Rap - CY $0.00 Erosion Control - LS $0.00 STRUCTURES AND SPECIAL FEATURES Guard Rail Railing - LF $0.00 Guard Rail End Anchors - EA $0.00 Crossing Warning Lights - EA $0.00 RR Crossing (At- Grade) - EA $0.00 Bridges - LS $0.00 Bridge Abutment and Wing Walls - CY $0.00 Retaining Walls - SF $0.00 Tunnels - LS $0.00 Relocate Utilities - LS $0.00 INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION Surveying ( typ. 5 %) LS $8,683.00 Material Testing (typ. 5 %) LS $8,683.00 Construction Management (typ. 2 %) LS $3,473.00 TOTAL PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE $216,198. TOTAL PROJECT CONTINGENCY (15 %) $32:429.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $248,627.00 TRAIL SECTION AVON TO DOWD JUNCTION Item Estimated Quantity Units Unit Price In Yr_2000 Estimated Cost PLANNING AND DESIGN OW and Land Purchase AC $0.001 ROW and Land Easement (survey, legal, etc.) EA $0.00 Permit Processing 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Engineering /Design (typ. 12% const. cost) 1 LS $182,141.00 $182,141.00 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Bonds and Insurance (typ, 3 %) 1 LS $45,535.00 $45,535.00 Mobilization (3K - 5K) 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Clean Up 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Clear and Grub 9.30 AC $2,000.00 $18,600.00 Topsoil (Removal and Stockpile) 1,500.00 CY $5.00 $7,500.00 Unclassified Excavation 3,200.00 CY $4.50 $14,40000 Embankment 3,200.00 CY $2.50 $8,000.00 Subgrade Grading 26,950.00 SY $1.25 $33,687.50 Base Course, Class 6 - 6" 11,350.00 TN $20.00 $227,000.00 Asphalt Pavement - 3" 3,800.00 TN $50.00 $190,000.00 Topsoil Slopes 1,500.00 CY $7.00 $10,500.00 Revegetation 3.80 AC $4,000.00 $15,200.00 Traffic Control Signage 41 .00 LS $175.00 $7,175.00 tripping urb and Gutter DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION 1,500.00 2,50000 LF LF $0.50 $17.00 $750.00 $42,500.00 Culvert, CPP - 18" 615.00 LF $35.00 $21,525.00 End Section, CMP - 18" 82.00 EA $200.00 $16,40000 Rip Rap - CY $0.00 Erosion Control 1.00 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 STRUCTURES AND SPECIAL FEATURES Guard Rail Railing 500.00 LF $20.00 $10,000.00 Guard Rail End Anchors 4.00 EA $650.00 $2,600.00 Crossing Warning Lights - EA $0.00 RR Crossing (At- Grade) 2.00 EA $20,000.00 $40,000.00 Bridges (Eagle, Railroad) 1.00 LS $325,000.00 $325,00000' Bridge Abutment and Wing Walls - CY $0.00 Retaining Walls 26,200.00 SF $20.00 $524,000.00 Tunnels - LS $0.00 Relocate Utilities - LS $0.00 INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION Surveying (typ. 5 %) LS $78,494.00 Materiai Testing (typ. 5 %) LS $78,494.00 Construction Management (typ, 2 %) LS $31,397.00 TAL PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE $1,942,399.00 TOTAL PROJECT CONTINGENCY (15 %) $291,359.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $2,233,758.00 4 TRAIL SECTION DOWD JUNCTION TO MINTURN Item Estimated Quantity Units Unit Price in Yr 2000 Estimated Cast PLANNING AND DESIGN ROW and Land Purchase AC $71 ROW and Land Easement (survey, legal, etc.) EA $0.00 Permit Processing 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.00 Engineering /Design (typ. 12% const. cost) 1 LS $51,957.00 $51,957.00 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Bonds and Insurance (typ. 3 %) 1 LS $12,989,00 $12,989.00 Mobilization (3K - 5K) 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Clean Up 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Clear and Grub - 1.20 AC $2,000-00i $2,400.00 Topsoil (Removal and Stockpile) 100.00 CY $5.00 $500.00 Unclassified Excavation 2,700.00 CY $4.50 $12,150.00 Embankment 2,700.00 CY $2.50 $6,750.00 Subgrade Grading 3,500.00 SY $1,25 $4,375.00 Base Course, Class 6 - 6" 1,500,00 TN $20.00 $30,000.00 Asphalt Pavement - 3" 500.00 TN $50.00 $25,000.00 Topsoil Slopes 100.00 CY $7.00 $700.00 Revegetation 0.30 AC $4,000.00 $1,200.00 Traffic Control Signage 38.00 LS $175,00 $6,650.00 Stripping 100.00 LF $0.50 $50,0 DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION Culvert, CPP - 18" 60.00 LF $35.00 $2,100.00 End Section, CMP - 18" 4.00 EA $200.00 $800.00 Rip Rap - CY $0.00. Erosion Control 1.00 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 STRUCTURES AND SPECIAL FEATURES Guard Rail Railing 300.00 LF $20.00 $6,000.00 Guard Rail End Anchors 2.00 EA $650.00 $1,300.00 Crossing Warning Lights - EA $0.00 RR Crossing (At- Grade) - EA $0.00 Bridges (Two Elk Creek) - LS $0.00 Bridge Abutment and Wing Walls - CY $0.00 Retaining Walls 16,500.00 SF $20.00 $330,000.00 Tunnels - LS $0.00 Relocate Utilities - LS $0.00 INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION Surveying ( typ. 5 %) LS $22,523.00 Material Testing (typ. 5 %) LS $22,523.00 Construction Management (typ. 2 %) LS $9,009.00 TOTAL PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE $562,476.0 TOTAL PROJECT CONTINGENCY (15 %) $84,371. TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $646.847,00 i 0 I F L TRAIL SECTION TOWN OF MINTURN Item Estimated Quantity Units Ouit Price in Yr 2000 Estimated Cast PLANNING AND DESIGN ROW and Land Purchase AC $0.00i ROW and Land Easement (survey, legal, etc.) EA $0.00 Permit Processing 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.00 Engineering /Design (typ. 12% const. cost) 1 LS $84,276.00 $84,276.00 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Bonds and Insurance (typ_ 3 %) 1 LS $21,069.00 $21,069.00 Mobilization (3K - 5K) 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 Clean Up 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Clear and Grub 6.00 AC $2,000.00 $12,000.00 Topsoil (Removal and Stockpile) 1,400.00 CY $5.00 $7,000.00 Unclassified Excavation 2,000.00 CY $4.50 $9,000.00 Embankment 2,000.00 CY $2.50 $5,000.00 Subgrade Grading 25,200.00 SY $1.25 $31,500.00 Base Course, Class 6 - 6" 10,600.00 TN $20.00 $212,000.00 Asphalt Pavement - 3" 3,550.00 TN $50.00 $177,500.00 Topsoil Slopes 1,400.00 CY $7.00 $9,800.00 Reveg etation 3.40 AC $4,000.00 $13,600.00 raffic Control Signage 38.00 LS $175.00 $6,650.00 tripping 200.00 LF $0.50 $100.00 DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION Culvert, CPP - 18" 570.00 LF $35.00 $19,950.00 End Section, CMP - 18 " - 76.00 EA $200.00 $15,200.00 Rip Rap - CY Erosion Controi 1.00 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 STRUCTURES AND SPECIAL FEATURES Guard Rail Railing - LF $0-00 Guard Rail End Anchors - EA $0.00 Crossing Warning Lights - EA $0.00 RR Crossing (At- Grade) 1.00 EA $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Bridges - LS $0.00 Bridge Abutment and Wing Walls - CY $0.00 Retaining Wails 8,000.00 SF $20.00 $160,000.00 Tunnels - LS $0.00 Relocate Utilities - LS $0.00 INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION Surveying ( typ. 5 %) LS $36,443.00 Material Testing (typ. 5 %) LS $36,443.00 Construction Management (typ. 2 %) LS $14,577.00 OTAL PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE $906,608.00 TOTAL PROJECT CONTINGENCY (15 %) $135,991.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $1,042 F L TRAIL SECTION MINTURN TO REDCLIFF Item Estimated Quantitll Units Unit Price in Yr 2000 Estimated Cyst PLANNING AND DESIGN ROW and Land Purchase AC ROW and Land Easement (survey, legal, etc.) EA Permit Processing 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.00 Engineering /Design (typ. 12% const. cost) 1 LS $75,199.00 $75,199.00 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Bonds and Insurance (typ- 3 %) 1 LS $18,800.00 $18,800.00 Mobilization (3K - 5K) 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Clean Up 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Clear and Grub 3.00 AC $2,000.40 $6,000.00 Topsoil (Removal and Stockpile) 460.00 CY $5.00 $2,300.00 Unclassified Excavation 2,250.00 CY $4.50 $10,125.00 Embankment 2,250.00 CY $2.50 $5,625.00 Subgrade Grading 44,150 -00 SY $1.25 $55,187 -50 Base Course, Class 6 - 6" 7,200.00 TN $20.00 $144,000 -00 Asphalt Pavement - 3" 1,200.00 TN $50.00 $60,000.00 Topsoil Slopes 460.00 CY $7.00 $3,220.00 Revegetation 6.00 AC $4,000.00 $24,000.00 Traffic Control Signage 66.00 LS $175.00 $11,550.00 Stripping 200.00 LF $0.50 $100.0 DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION Culvert, CPP - 18" 990.00 LF $35.00 $34,650.00 End Section, CMP - 18" 132.00 EA $200.00 $26,400.00 Rip Rap - CY $0.00 Erosion Control 1.00 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 STRUCTURES AND SPECIAL FEATURES Guard Rail Railing - LF $0.00 Guard Rail End Anchors - EA $0.00 Crossing Warning Lights 1.00 EA $500.00 $500.00 RR Crossing (At- Grade) - EA $0.00 Bridges (Two Elk Creek) 1.00 LS $90,000.00_ $90,000.00 Bridge Abutment and Wing Walls - CY $0.00 Retaining Walls 7,500.00 SF $20.00 $150,000.00 Tunnels - LS $0.00 Relocate Utilities - LS $0.00 INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION Surveying ( typ- 5 %) LS $32,598.00 Material Testing (typ. 5 %) LS $32,598.00 Construction Management (typ. 2 %) LS $13,039.00 TOTAL PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE $811,392.0 TOTAL PROJECT CONTINGENCY (15 %) $121,708.0 OTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $933,100.00 0 r F - 6- ' TRAIL SECTION TOWN OF VAIL IMPROVEMENTS Item Estimated Quantity units unit Price in Yr 2000 Estimated Cost PLANNING AND DESIGN ROW and Land Purchase AC $0.00 ROW and Land Easement (survey, legal, etc.) EA $0.00 Permit Processing 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Engineering /Design (typ. 12% const. cost) 1 LS $11,337.00 $11,337.00 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Bonds and Insurance (typ. 3 %) 1 LS $2,834.00 $2,834.00 Mobilization (31K - 5K) 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Clean Up 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Clear and Grub 1.50 AC 52,000.00 $3,000.00 Topsoil (Removal and Stockpile) 250.00 CY $5.00 $1,250.00 Unclassified Excavation - CY $0.00 Embankment - CY $0.00 Subgrade Grading 4,500.00 SY $1.25 $5,625.00 Base Course, Class 6 - 5" 1,000.00 TN $20.00 $38,000.00 Asphalt Pa vement - 3 " 630.00 TN $50.00 531,500.00 Topsoil Slopes 250.00 CY $7.00 $1,750.00 Revegetation 1.00 AC $4,000 -00 $4,000.00 Traffic Control Signage 7.00 LS $175.00 $1,225.00 tripping 300,00 LF $0.50 $150.00 DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION Culvert, CPP - 18" 105.00 LF $35.00 $3,675.00 End Section, CMP - 18" 14.00 EA $200.00 $2,800.00 Rip Rap - CY $0.00 Erosion Control 0.50 LS $3,000.00 $1,500.00 STRUCTURES AND SPECIAL FEATURES Guard Rail Railing - LF $0.00' Guard Rail End Anchors - EA $0.00 Crossing Warning Lights - EA $0.00 RR Crossing (At- Grade) EA $0.00 Bridges - LS $0.00 Bridge Abutment and Wing Walls - CY $0.00 Retaining Walls - SF $0.00 Tunnels - LS $0.00 Relocate Utilities - LS $0.00 INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION Surveying ( typ. 5 %) LS $5,090.00 Material Testing (typ. 5 %) LS $5,090.00 Construction Management (typ. 2 %) LS $2,036.00 OTAL PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE $127,362.00 OTAL PROJECT CONTINGENCY (15 %) $19,104.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE 1 $146,466.00 Appendix B Trail Plan Process Participants Eagle Valley Trails Committee Dick Cleveland Ginny Culp Louise Randall Amy Losa Fred Hasiee Thomas Gutherie Paul Gotthelf John Bailey Buff Arnold Ken Rhoads Jeff Auxier Leslie Kehmeier Bill Fisher Mike Toughill Martha Miller Kip Mayer Chip Tallon Katherine Nannin Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority Kevin Foley, Town of Vail Debbie Buckley, Town of Avon Bob Mcliveen, Beaver Creek and Town of Avon Larry Grafel, Beaver Creek Willy Powell, Town of Eagle Donna Meyer, Town of Eagle Tom Stone, Eagle County Mike Gallagher, Eagle County George Roussos, Eagle County Jeff Shroll, Town of Gypsum Francis Barela, Town of Gypsum Jim Kleckner, Town of Minturn Aian Lanning, Town of Mintum Robert Slagle, Town of Red Cliff Private Sector Participants: Johnson and Kunkel Engineering Monroe and Newell Engineering Union Pacific Railroad The Citizens Serving on the: Eagle County Board of County Commissioners Eagle Town Board Eagle Town Planning Commission Gypsum Town Council Gypsum Town Planning Commission Avon Town Council Avon Planning Commission Vail Town Council Vail Planning Commission Minturn Town Council Minturn Planning Commission Red Cliff Town Council Red Cliff Planning Commission Eagle County Planning Commission Local, State and Federal Government Stag: Norm Wood, Town of Avon Anne Martens, Town of Avon Vern Brock, Town of Eagle Larry McKinzie, Town of Eagle Lisa DeGraaf, Town of Minturn Greg Hall, Town of Vail Gregg Barrie, Town of Vail Brent Wilson, Town of Vail Brad Higgins, Eagle County Bob Narracci, Eagle County Joe Forinash, Eagle County Keith Montag, Eagle County Helen Migchelbrink, Eagle County Peter Sulmeisters, Eagle County Mike Gruber, Eagle County Leslie Kehmeier, Eagle County GIS John Staight, Eagle County GIS Sean Koenig, Eagle County GIS Ellie Caryl, ECO Traiis Janet Field, ECO Ann Allums, ECO Bill Heicher, Colorado Division of Wildlife Bill Andree, Colorado Division of Wildlife Keith Powers, Colorado Department of Transportation Brian Hopkins, US Bureau of Land Management Beth Boyst, US Forest Service Joe Doerr, US Forest Service r • Appendix C References • AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999 • Florida Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Manual 1996, 'Florida Department of Transportation • Colorado Department of Transportaton's Bikeway Design Guidelines, 1994 • Bicycling info.org website, Produced by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, Exerpts from January, 2001 • National Bicycle and Pedestrian Clearinghouse, Technical Assistance Series Number 9, August 1996 • Successful Strategies for Trail Development, Rails -to- Trails Conservancy, Workshop Proceedings, November, 1998 • Commentary and Text, Section 14, ADA Accessibility Guidelines • Bicycle Facility Planning, Planning Advisory Service, Report Number 459, American Planning Association, 1995 • Summit County Recreational Pathways Master Plan, 1989 • Trails 2000 Program, Jefferson County Open Space Master Plan, 1998 • Scottsdale (Arizona) Bike Path Improvement Study, 1992 • Historic Union Pacific Rail Trail Master Plan, 1991 Heart of the Rockies Historic Corridor, Trail Feasibility Study, 1996 Eagle County Land Use Regulations 1998 • Eagle County Trail Plan 1993 • Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan, 1994 • Minturn Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 1992 • Town of Avon Recreation Master Plan, 1992 • Boulder's Stream Corridors Design Guidelines, 1989 Bicycling and Walking in Colorado, Colorado Department of Transportation, 2000 • Yampa Valley Trails and Recreation Conceptual Plan, 1992 • The Intermountain Connection, Rails and Trails Report, 1998 • Glenwood Springs Park, Recreation, Open Space, Greenway and Pathway Master Plan, 1998 • Heart of the Rockies Historic Corridor Trail Feasibility Study, 1996 • Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind, Colorado State Parks, 1998 C7 i � I Appendix D Recommended Core Trail Furniture and Accessories Recommended Picnic Table Style Order in Forest Green Recycled Plastic with galvanized base for low maintenance. Anchored in concrete to discourage vandalism. Available from RJ Thomas Manufacturing DBA Pilot Rock Products. Recommended Bench Style Order in Forest Green Recycled Plastic with galvanized base for low maintenance. Anchored in concrete to'discourage vandalism. Available from RJ Thomas Manufacturing DBA Pilot Rock Products. 0 • ( insert photos of garbage can, lighting, bike rack here) 0 oop m A m O 0 S�- 4- L) x x x % 10 �k IV x x X x , X, x v I- x I K6� V NIA X X" Y Ixl X. I Y X V LD x )�X' x 'XX Y, 1Y r \ f +�� � z v, ? � e � Q = � 3ia� _ `a � a °� � \'� � if N x x x j3 Y. Y,% xy \ A, X, y x Ll 2� x fl it 0, 'At LLJ RE s Y' r lm t 7FD y vl- � rim I I ID � 1 R w fdri tk. cu al rl: L cu Z— E 0 , L) M cl > E I c C all 4 EL M� Iwo Nil vc En , 177e, Z4 m E X LO ,:k� 50 \� �� � §© 2 � §» \�� \ . o . � � » »= 2 < :��� �� \ / ^/ /\ � \. &&g.k °/ «. � � � »� ® � . . �T » »� +��� &y� .��& \3232 r2: / «�� S \ \�} � \� /� \�� \� � � \ \ � \�CZ7� «�� # • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, March 12, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION f - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME NO LUNCH MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits : 1. Westwind Condos — 548 S. Frontage Rd. 2. Boothfalls — 3160 Boothfalls Rd. Driver: Russ Air ���� y FO 1:00 prn 1:30 pm � NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a variance from Section 11- 4B -3(D) Vail Town Code, to allow for a second building identification sign, located at 548 S. Frontage Road / Westwind Condominiums. • 2. A request for a worksession to discuss rezoning from Agriculture and Open Space to Primary /Secondary Residential and a Minor Subdivision to create two residential lots and a request for a recommendation to the Town Council for an amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan changing the land use designation from Public/Semi- Public use to Low Density Residential, located at 3160 Booth Falls Road /Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12' Filing. Applicant: Boothfalls Homeowner's Association, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Russell Forrest 3. A request for variances from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks) and Title 14 (Development Standards - locating required parking in the Right -of -Way), to allow for a residential addition and remodel located at 2955 Bellflower Dr. / Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Westwind Condominium Association. Inc. Planner: Brent Wilson Applicant: Alan Peters, represented by Braun Associates Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MARCH 26, 2001 • The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published March 9, 2001 in the Vail Trail_ MEMBERS ABSENT TOWN OF PAIL pit PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • • PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, March 12, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1 - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME NO LUNCH MEMBERS PRESENT Chas Bernhardt Galen Aasland Doug Cahill Brian Doyon Site Visits : 1. Westwind Condos -- 548 S. Frontage Rd. 2_ Boothfails — 3160 Boothfalls Rd, Driver: Allison 1 :00 pm 1:30 pm NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearin - Town Council Chambers 2 :00 pm A request for a variance from Section 11-48 -3(D) Vail Town Code, to allow for a second building identification sign, located at 548 S. Frontage Road /Westwind Condominiums. Applicant: Westw'rnd Condominium Association, Inc. Planner: Brent Wilson MOTION: Brian Doyen SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 4 -0 APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: 1. That the sign on the southwest door be removed. 2. That the sign and any proposed lighting be reviewed by the Design Review Board, 2. A request for a worksession to discuss rezoning from Agriculture and Open Space to PrimarylSecondary Residential and a Minor Subdivision to create two residential lots and a request for a recommendation to the Town Council for an amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan changing the land use designation from Public /Semi- Public use to Low Density Residential, located at 3160 Booth Falls Road /Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12` Filing. Applicant: Booth Falls Homeowners' Association, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Russell Forrest WORKSESSION -- NO VOTE • AWN 0VL F MEMBERS ABSENT Diane Golden John Schofield 3. A request for variances from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks) and Title 14 (Development Standards - locating required parking in the Right -of -Way), to allow for a residential addition and remodel located at 2955 Bellflower Dr. / Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan Peters, represented by Braun Associates Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MARCH 26, 2001 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing impaired, for information. Community Development Department Ll 0 2 75 South Frontage Road Dail, Colorado 81657 970- 479 -2100 Fax: 970 - 479 -2157 WWW. ci. Vail. co. uS MEMORANDUM • TO: Vail Town Council, Staff and Community Members FROM: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk DATE: March 6, 2001 RE: Microphone Use in the Town Council Chambers It has come to the attention of the staff and outside transcribers, during the course of having to transcribe and listen to some of the Town Council meeting tapes, that the quality and audibility of the Town Council work session and evening meeting tapes are poor and difficult to understand. It is very important that everyone, including council members, staff and the public speak into the microphones clearly and speak within six (6) inches from the microphone. This will alleviate some of the distortion, echoing, and audibility issues we are experiencing. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding of this issue. Please contact: me if you have any questions at 479 -2136. C) RECYCLEAPAPEIt 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 12, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 11- 4B -3(D) Vail Town Code, to allow for a second building identification sign, located at 548 S. Frontage Road/Westwind Condominiums. Applicant: Westwind Condominium Association, Inc. Planner: Brent Wilson / Bill Gibson 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Westwind Condominium Association is requesting a variance to allow a second building identification sign at the southwest corner of the Westwind building (facing the Lionshead pedestrian mail). Section 11- 4B -3(D) of the Town of Vail Sign Regulations allows a maximum of one building identification sign per building. This application involves the placement of a 7.33 square foot hanging wrought iron sign along the southwest entry adjacent to the Landmark Building_ This sign would supplement the existing 17.25 square foot building identification sign along the northern fagade of the condominiums. An existing non - conforming sign at this location was removed recently and a variance is necessary for its replacement_ The applicant's statement of the nature of the variance request is attached for reference. II. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to-the proposed variance. i TOWN OF VAIL � Design Review Board: ,fiction: The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRIB proposal for: - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal /Preservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on -site - Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms - Provision of landscape and drainage - Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances - Location and design of satellite dishes - Provision of outdoor lighting Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 0 Upon review of the criteria outlined in Section IV of this memorandum, the Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the variance request to allow for a second building identification sign, located at 548 S. Frontage Road /Westwind Condominiums, based upon the following finding(s): That special circumstances or conditions do not apply to the land, building, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the right -of -way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign. 2. The variance applied for departs from the provisions of the Vail Town Code more than is required to identify the applicant's business use. • . IV. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION —SIGN VARIANCE A. Consideration of factors: 1. Special Circumstances Exist: There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right -of- way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question, provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. The applicant states the variance is necessary to facilitate building identification from residents and guests arriving via the Lionshead pedestrian mall. While it is recognized the building fronts along a major pedestrian way, resident/guest vehicular traffic arrives via the entrance along South Frontage Road (where the 17.25 square foot building identification sign exists). The Westwind Condominiums are not part of the town's "parking pay -in- lieu" program and resident/guest parking is accommodated on -site. Therefore, staff believes the issue of pedestrian traffic from the mall area is only relevant to short -term guests returning from a day of skiing or shopping in the Lionshead vicinity. This situation is identical to nearly all other residential properties in Lionshead. Additionally, the town's Sign Regulations currently allow for pedestrian traffic circulation signage to address this issue without a variance. Staff does not believe there are any special, unique circumstances on this site that warrant a deviation in the application of the town's Sign Regulations. 2. Applicant Not Responsible: That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant. Staff does not believe there are any special, unique circumstances on this site that warrant a deviation in the application of the town's Sign Regulations. 3. Harmony Maintained: That granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of the sign code, and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. Similar variances have been approved in the past for building identification signs on large condominium or hotel projects. It is important to note, however, that a variance approved for the Landmark Building in 1989 (to allow for three building identification signs) involved a staff error in the interpretation of the sign code. 0 In 1987, the PEC approved a similar variance for the Evergreen Lodge (formerly the Doubletree Hotel) upon finding that the location of a large retaining wall restricted the exposure of one identification sign to passersby. Therefore, the "special circumstances" criterion had been addressed to the satisfaction of the PEC. With regard to a Chateau at Vail sign variance in 1986, the PEC found the location of the Alpine Standard gas station blocked the visibility of the guest entrance to the hotel and that an additional sign was warranted along South Frontage Road. Therefore, the "special circumstances" criterion was also addressed in this situation. Staff does not believe an approval of this variance request would be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. 4. In Line With Provisions: The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this Title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. The Town of Vail Sign Regulations currently allow for pedestrian circulation directional signage that would address many, if not all, of the association's concerns. This type of signage is encouraged in the town's master plan documents_ Policy 6.7 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan encourages a "consistent, comprehensive directional signage program. Vehicular and pedestrian - scaled directional signage should be incorporated into the design of all primary corridors." Therefore, staff believes there are alternatives under the provisions of the town's Sign Regulations that could meet the applicant's objectives without the need for a variance. 5. Other Factors: Such other factors and criteria as the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findin s before rantin a variance: That special circumstances or conditions apply to the land, building, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the right -of -way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign. 2_ That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant. 4 3. That granting the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of this title and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of the Vail Town Code more than is required to identify the applicant's business use. • • D E S T 1 N A T I 0 N R E S O R T S 610 WEST LI0NSHEAD CIRCLE FAIL, COLORADO 81657 -5293 ' TELEPHOAIE 1 970) 476 -1350 FAX (970) 415 -1617 February 9, 2001 Town of Vail_ Brent Wilson `Manning & Environment Committee 75 S. Frontage Rd �.. a rte. Vail, CO 81657 Dear PFC; Members, The Westwind Condominium Association is requesting a variance to install a second sign onto the south side of their building because unnecessary physical hardship. The building has two active entrances to our building and only one visible sign. One entrance services our Frontage Road driving traffic and the other entrance services our Lionshead Mall walking traffic. At this time the building has the only one sign that is placed above its front entrance on its north wall. This sign is only visible to someone on the Frontage Rd. or approaching from the north side of the building. Many of our guests look for our building from the mall area and the building does not have any visible sign for someone approaching from the south. As you are aware, many Vail visitors do not have cars. They use the bus system which drops them into the Lionshead mall. They then approach our building from the south on foot. Without this t sign tyre have hMri anr-1 tinrild -- --roue o have •.� r urn,.. w, ,u � , to v visitors approaching from the mall that are unable to easily find our building. At one time the building did have a sign in the requested location that was stolen. Apparently, since we did not replace that sign immediately, we now have to request a variance to install its replacement_ Because of this unnecessary hardship the Association is asking for this variance which will allow the installation of a ne:'second sign to be ir-1 ted on the buildi south west comer according to all other sign regulations. We thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincer ly„ M nager Westwind Condominium Ass.. Inc. A Lowe Enterprises Company �1 �y 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: department of Community Development DATE: March 12, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss rezoning from Agriculture and Open Space to Two Family Residential and a Minor Subdivision to create two lots and a request for a recommendation to the Town Council for an amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan change the land use designation from Public/Semi- Public use to Low Density Residential located at 3160 Booth Fall Road /Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12 Filing. Applicant: Booth Falls Homeowners Association represented by Tom Braun Staff: Russ Forrest DESCRIPTION & PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST: The applicant is requesting that the property at 3160 Booth Falls Road /Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12 Filing, be rezoned from Agriculture Open Space to Two Family Residential (Attachment A). This parcel is 54,892 square feet (1.26 acres) in size and is owned by the Booth Fall Homeowners Association. Existing improvements on the lot include a tennis court. To facilitate this rezoning the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan, to change the land use designation from Public /Semi Public to Low Density Residential. The applicant is further requesting a subdivision of the parcel into two lots 12W (24,840 sq. ft) and 12E (30,052 sq. ft) The applicant has a contract to sell this land to the Vail Mountain School. The Vail Mountain School has not yet determined what they may eventually propose for the site if they acquire the land. The other reason for the proposed change in the Land Use Plan and rezoning, is that the Homeowners Association would like to sell the land to pay for a rock fall mitigation berm to protect the Association buildings from a high rockfall hazard. There has been significant damage to Association buildings from rock fall incidents in the past. A rock fall mitigation plan consisting of a wail north of the Association buildings has been approved by the Town of Vail. This.appiication must be reviewed based on the criteria for a Land Use Plan amendment, a rezoning, and creating a subdivision. 1 T0W,AV OF PAIL II. BACKGROUND 0 The Booth Falls area was originally owned by Vail Associates (VA) and annexed into the Town in 1972. The Booth Falls Condominium project was developed in 1973. In 1979, VA quit claimed a 1.26 acre parcel to the Booth Fall Homeowners Association. Based on information from the applicant, the land did have a private deed restriction on it that allowed Vail Associates to repossess the land if the land were used for uses other than recreation or open space. However, in 2000 Vail Resorts removed that deed restriction. The existing tennis court was developed by the Booth Falls Homeowners Association. The subject property is shown below: III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The March 12 meeting regarding this item is a worksession. Staff does not have a final recommendation at this time. There is a review of the criteria presented below. • 2 0 0 IV. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS PEC: The role of the PEC is to make a recommendation to the Town Council on the Land Use Amendment and the rezoning application based on the criteria stated below. In addition, the PEC will make a final decision on the minor subdivision based on the criteria below. Town Council: The Town Council would need to approve or disapprove a resolution to amend the Land Use Plan. The Town Council would need to approve or disapprove an ordinance on changing the zoning. DRB: The DRB does not play a role with these three applications. V. VAIL LAND USE PLAN AND CRITERIA FOR AN AMENDMENT General Overview of the Plan The Vail Land Use Plan was initiated in 1985 and adopted in 1966 by the Vail Town Council. The main purposes of the Land Use Plan are two -fold: To articulate the land use goals of the Town. To serve as a guide for decision making by the Town. The Vail Land Use Plan is intended to serve as a basis from which future land use decisions may be made within the Town of Vail. The goals, as articulated within the Land Use Plan, are meant to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals, In conjunction with these goals, land use categories are defined to indicate general types of land uses which are then used to develop the Vail Land Use Map, The Land Use Plan is not intended to be regulatory in nature, but is intended to provide a general framework to guide decision making. Where the land use categories and zoning conflict, existing zoning controls development on a site. To be effective, the Land Use Plan must be updated to reflect current thinking and changing market conditions. The Vail Land Use Plan can be amended in three ways: 1) The Community Development Department can update and revise the plan periodically. The Community Development Department then makes recommendations for the proposed changes to the Planning and Environmental Commission, where these changes would then be considered in a public hearing format. The Planning and Environmental Commission would then make a recommendation to the Town Council, where another public hearing would be held. The Councii then adopts the changes by resolution. 2) The Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council can also initiate amendments to the Land Use Plan. Again, both boards hold public hearings and the changes are adopted by the Town Council by resolution. 3) The private sector can also initiate amendments to the Vail Land Use Plan. 0 3 Applications may be made by a registered voter, a property owner, or a property owner's authorized representative. The amendments are then heard by both the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council. The Town Council then adopts the changes by resolution. Land Use Plan Designation Descri tion Current Land Use Plan Designation: Public /Semi -Pub is (PSP): The Public and semi - public category includes schools, post office, water and sewer service and storage facilities, cemeteries, municipal facilities, and other public institutions, which are located throughout the community to serve the needs of residents. Proposed Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential: This category includes single - family detached homes and two family dwelling units. Density of development within this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre however, all of the adjacent residential uses exceed 3 dwelling units per acre. Also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and clubhouses for the use of residents of the area. Institutional /public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. Criteria for changing the land use plan 0 Any amendments to the Land Use Plan require a public process. Adjacent properties are notified, the Planning and Environmental Commission holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the Town Council on the proposal. The Town Council adopts the changes by resolution. Any changes to the Land Use Plan must address the following three criteria: Criteria 1: How conditions have changed since the plan was adapted? Physical conditions and the fundamental land use patterns of the neighborhood have not changed since the 1986 adoption of the plan. However, the demand for tennis has deminished and the program at the Vail Mountain School has expanded. Vail Mountain School provides a valuable community service. Criteria 2: How the plan is in error? The plan is in error with regard to the ownership of the lot_ The plan identifies this lot as Town owned land. That is not correct. Therefore, the land use plan designation of Public/Semi Public may have been done based on incorrect information. There are not other lots with the Public/Semi Public designation that are privately owned (i.e. not owned by a public or quasi public entity). 4 0 Criteria 3: How the addition, deletion or change to the plan is in concert with the plan in general? Adjacent lands are designated as low density residential in the plan. This proposed change is consistent with the adjacent uses. There is also other significant open space in the neighborhood and Town of Vail compatible with Town of Vail development objectives. VI. REZONING CRITERIA Zoning Overview The current zoning is Agdculture and Open Space. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to Two - Family Residential. The Town of Vail Zoning Regulations are intended to: "Promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality." In contrast to the Land Use Plan, which serves as a guide in land use decision making, the zoning and subdivision regulations are the regulatory tools to control development. The zoning regulations are specific with regards to development on property, including density, setbacks, height, etc. Where conflicts exist between the Land Use Plan and the zoning for a site, existing zoning controls development. However, in cases where a change in zoning is considered for a site, the land use designation and land use objectives as identified in the Land Use Plan are important considerations in the decision making process. Summary of Existino and Proposed Zone District The parcel is currently zoned Agriculture Open Space. The applicant is proposing to change the zoning to Two Family Two Family Residential (See attachment 8) Rezoning Criteria 1) Is the existing zoning suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent land uses? Staff believes the existing zoning designation is suitable with the existing and adjacent land uses. However, the proposed zoning of Two Family Residential is consistent with the adjacent uses. In addition, the lot size of 1.25 is inconsistent with the minimum lot size of the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District which is one dwelling unit per 35 acres. 2) Is the amendment presenting a convenient workable relationship with land uses consistent with municipal objectives? • The proposed rezoning is the same as the adjacent zoning. If the Vail Mountain School acquires the site for residential, educational, or recreational uses, these uses can be accommodated as a permitted or conditional use (s) in the Two Family Zone District. Impacts can be mitigated through the conditional use permit process and review. There are no apparent infrastructure, environmental, or circulation impacts that would be generated by this proposal, 3) Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly viable community? In accordance with the provisions of the Town of Vail Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and Vail's Master Plan Elements, staff believes this rezoning provides for the growth of an orderly viable community. 4) Is the change consistent with the Land Use Plan? If the Vail Land Use Plan is amended to Low Density Residential for the site, then the proposed rezoning would be consistent with the Plan. The Vail Land Use Plan does identify the adjacent land uses as Low Density Residential which would be consistent with the proposed use of the site. Specific Land Use Plan goals that are consistent with the application include; 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial, and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident, 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geological hazard areas. (The applicants stated purpose of this action is to facilitate the mitigation of a high rockfall hazard on an existing property.) 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas. 5,1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new area where high hazards do not exist. Zoning Analysis Existing Zoning: Agriculture and Open Space District Standard Allowed Existing Lot 12 Min Lot Area 35 acres with a min. of 1 acre of buildable area 54,892 sq. ft_ or 1.26 acres Density 1 unit Buildable Area 1 acre 54,592 s , ft. GRFA 1 2,000 + garage credit 2,000 Site Coverage 5% of area or 2,745 rs . ft. 2,744 i Proposed Zoning: Two Family Primary Secondary District Standard Allowed Lot 12W Lot12E Min. Lot Area 15,000 s . ft. 24,838 s . ft. 30,052 s . ft. Min. Frontage 30' 200' 35' i Density 2 DU+ 1 EHU GRFA (see attachment b ) 5,588 +500 for EHU 6,103 +500 for EHU Site Coverage 20% of the total lot area 4,967 6,010 VII. REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION The proposed subdivision meets the criteria for a Minor Subdivision as defined in 13 -2 -2 (E) in that the proposed subdivision contains "not more than four (4) lots fronting on an existing street." Attached is a copy of the proposed plat for the site. The criteria for reviewing a Minor Subdivision includes: A basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot(s) must be met. This subdivision will be reviewed under Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Code. The first set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision application is: Lot Area Both lots have at least 15,000 square feet of buildable area as defined in section 12 -6D -5 of the Town Code. Frontage Both lots meet the minimum lot frontage of 30 feet. Dimension Each lot would meet the minimum dimension standard requiring the lot to enclose a square 80 ft. by 80 ft. The second set of criteria to be considered with a Minor Subdivision application, as outlined in the subdivision regulations, is: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13 -3 -3C, The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. 9 7 The Specific Purpose of the Subdivision Regulations is as follows: To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated, and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the minor subdivision for compliance with the applicable evaluation criteria. Upon the completion of our review the staff finds that the proposed subdivision complies with the subdivision criteria. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. Staff Response: The proposed subdivision and rezoning are consistent with the adjacent land uses and should not present a conflict to development on adjacent land. This proposal could enhance the Vail Mountain schools opportunities for improving and enhancing their facilities. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response: The existence of open space beside property can have a positive impact on property values. However, staff does not believe that this proposal will have a significant negative impact on adjacent property values. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Town development objectives. Staff Response: The proposed subdivision and rezoning is compatible with adjacent land uses and provides a workable relationship amongst land uses consistent with Town Development objectives. It should be acknowledged that an objective of the Land Use Plan (pg 31. D -2) is to "continue to preserve open space and that the Town should purchase land critical for open space preservation." However, this parcel was not identified in the 1994 Comprehensive Open Lands plan as a parcel for acquisition. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: This goal of the Subdivision Regulations is intended to ensure adequate public facilities are provided concurrent with land subdivision. The property is currently served by sanitary sewer, water, electric and gas. Staff finds that sufficient capacity exists at this location to facilitate the subdivision request and the associated land development application. 8 � To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. Staff Response: The proposed minor subdivision plat has been prepared in accordance with the standards prescribed in the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations. To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of the land. Staff Response: Staff believes the minor subdivision request complies with the above - described criteria. Attachment A: Applicants submittal Attachment B: Summary of existing and proposed zone districts Attachment C: Proposed Plat F:zdev\PECWEMOS1011Landuseplan change for 3160 Booth falls.doc • 0 9 1RAIVIBIRAUN ASSOCIATES. INC. - 0 PIANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Booth Falls Homeowner's Association, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. DATE: February 7, 2001 SUBJECT: Proposed rezoning to Two - Family Residential, Land Use Plan map amendment to Low Density Residential, and minor subdivision to create two residential lots located at 3160 Booth Falls Road /Portion of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 12. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Booth Falls Homeowner's Association (BFHA), owner /applicant, is requesting approval of three separate applications; a Land Use Plan Map amendment, a rezoning, and a minor subdivision for land the Association owns located at 3160 Booth Falls Road (tennis court site). Specifically, the BFHA is requesting that the Land Use Map designation of "Public /Semi- Public" be changed to "Low Density Residential," the property be rezoned from "Agriculture and Open Space" to "Two- Family Residential," and the 1.26 acre parcel be subdivided into two duplex lots. The proposed residential }ots are generous in land area (24,838 sq. ft. and 30,052 sq. ft.), well above the minimum required by the Two - Family Residential zone district of 15,000 sq. ft., and consistent with all other provisions of the two- family zone district. The zoning and proposed use of the property is consistent and compatible with the other duplex lots in the neighborhood. The lots have been designed to provide adequate access to the parcels and adequate areas for the development of duplex structures while respecting other developed homes in the area. II. BACKGROUND The Booth Falls area (205 acres) was originally owned by Vail Associates, Inc. and annexed to the Town in 1972. The Booth Falls Condominiums project was developed in 1973 subject to an approved plan by the Town. In 1979, VA quitclaimed a 1.26 -acre parcel (the subject property) to the BFHA for the use of the Association. A tennis court was developed on the site by the BFHA, which still exists today on the property. The Vail Mountain School property and the subject property were both zoned "Agriculture" in 1972. Subsequently, in 1973, the Agriculture district was changed to the Agriculture and Open Space district, thus effectively rezoning the subject property as w0 as the Vail Mountain School property. In the 1990's, the Vail Mountain School property was rezoned to General Use. Edwards Village Center, Suite C -209 Ph. - 970.926.7575 0165 Edwards Village Boulevard Fax - 970.926.7576 Post Office Box 2658 www.braunassoclates.com Edwards. Colorado 81632 In 1986, seven years after the subject property was purchased by the BFHA, the Town of Vail adopted the Vail Land Use Plan_ The Land Use Plan designated this property as "Public/Semi- Public" use, even though the property was owned by a private entity (see discussion below). The existing conditions of the property today include some recently planted evergreen trees, Aspens, a fenced tennis court, and areas that have been regraded with berms and fill. III. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan Map Amendment from Public /Semi - Public to Low Density Residential The Land Use Plan is intended to be a general policy guide upon which the Town boards should base future decisions with respect to land uses. The Plan contemplated changes in conditions and the economy. The Plan contains language recommending that the plan be updated "every three to five years." The Plan has never been comprehensively updated since its adoption in 1986. The Plan contains a section stating how the plan should be utilized. It's states in part: The Land Use Plan map and the goal statements are intended to serve as the primary focus for the review of development proposals, along with Town ordinances and regulations. The Plan Map and goals statements are founded upon the supporting information and data contained in this document and therefore should not be utilized as the sole instrument for analysis of a project. Any project should be reviewed within the context of the intent of the overall Plan document. With respect to rezoning requests the Plan states that: It will be the responsibility of the applicant to clearly demonstrate how conditions have changed since the Plan was adopted, how the Plan is in error or how the addition, deletion or change to the Plan is in concert with the Plan in general. We believe there are several valid arguments, which support the change in land use designation from "Public /Semi- Public" to "Low Density Residential." An error was made when the Land Use Plan was adopted in 1986. The subject property was shown on Figure 4 — E "Inventory of Town Owned Property' (see map 1 attached) as being owned by the Town of Vail. This property was never owned by the Town of Vail and was owned by the Boothfalls Homeowner's Association at the date of adoption of this Plan (and had been owned for seven years at the adoption of the Plan), It appears that this mistake then caused the Town to designate this property as "Public/Semi- Public." Additionally, the Plan states that the land was "dedicated to the Town of Vail as open space as part of subdividing." This statement is incorrect, as the land was never dedicated to the Town of Vail for any use. We believe that this error in the understanding of the land ownership led the Town to Booth Falls Homeowner's Association Page 2 of 7 Braun Associates, Inc. designating the property for public/semi- public use rather than a designation more relevant to its ownership and the context of the neighborhood. All other properties designated by the Town as Public /Semi- public are lands owned by the Town (i.e., Public Works shops, Vail Village parking structure, Lionshead parking structure, Mountain Bell property, etc.). 2. The Booth Falls Condominiums as well as all of the neighboring residential lots in this area are designated as "Low Density Residential" in the Land Use Plan. The proposed designation for this property as "Low Density Residential" is therefore consistent and compatible with the neighborhood. The current designation of "Public/Semi-Public" on the property is incompatible with the designation of surrounding property. This land use designation promotes the use for the construction of potentially large buildings such as "municipal buildings, water and sewer service and storage facilities, post offices, schools, and other public institutions_" This is not to say the public uses are always incompatible with low density residential uses, but rather in this specific instance, given the configuration of the parcel and the close proximity of the surrounding residential uses, certain public facilities may be incompatible. 4. The proposed change in land use designation is consistent with the Vail Land Use Plan map and goal statements when the Plan is reviewed as a whole. Rezoning Request from Agriculture and Open Space to Two - Family Residential This property is located in a neighborhood where the majority of the lots are zoned Two - Family Residential. The residential lots which are adjacent to this lot are zoned Two- Family Residential and the Booth Falls Condominiums are zoned Low Density Multiple Family. The property to the south, owned by the Vail Mountain School, is zoned General Use. We believe the rezoning is warranted for the following reasons: 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the zoning on neighboring property and is generally compatible with the neighborhood. 2. The Land Use Plan, in reference to this property, states, "the site offers no apparent unique visual or environmental benefits." The Plan goes on to say that the Town should consider the site for "disposition" (even though the Town does not own the property). Therefore, the Plan acknowledges that this property does not hold any unique characteristics warranting that it be preserved as open space. Subdivision Request The proposed subdivision creates two duplex lots meeting all of the subdivision criteria found in the Town's regulations. Additionally, as evidenced in the hazard report provided with the application, there are no high severity hazards affecting the property. We believe the proposed subdivision is consistent with other residential lots in the neighborhood. Booth Falls Homeowner's Association l raun Associates, Inc. 11 Page 3 of 7 • IV. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Two - Family Residential Standard Code Requirement Lot 12W Lot 12E Lot area 15,000 sq. ft. 24,838 sq. ft. 30,052 sq_ ft. Minimum Frontage GRFA Buildable area V. CRITERIA 30' 15,040 sq. ft. > 200' 35' 5,158 sq. ft. 5,578 sq. ft. 24,838 sq. ft. 30,052 sq. ft. Land Use Plan Map Amendment To amend the Land Use Plan Map, it shall be demonstrated that conditions have changed since the Plan was adopted, that the Plan is in error, or that the proposed addition, deletion, or change to the Plan is in concert with the Plan in general. As explained in section VI of this memo, we believe it has been demonstrated that the change is warranted due to an error with the application of the existing land use designation and that the proposed land use designation is in concert with the Plan in general and with other land uses in the vicinity. Rezoning The PEG shall make the following findings before recommending approval of a zone change request; Is the proposed zoning suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent land uses? The proposed Two - Family Residential zoning for the property is consistent with the existing land uses on the property and those residential uses in the vicinity. The adjacent residential land uses are also zoned Two - Family Residential. The property to the south is zoned General Use and approved for use as a school facility. Residential uses in this area are compatible with these school facilities. 2. Is the amendment preventing a convenient workable relationship with land uses consistent with municipal objectives? The proposed rezoning will create a convenient workable relationship among land uses in the area. The proposed zoning is consistent with the Town's Land Use plan, which outlines the municipal objectives of the Town. • Booth Palls Homeowner's Association Braun Associates, Inc. Page 4 of 7 3. Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly viable community? The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Town's subdivision regulations and provides for an orderly viable community. The proposal will create two duplex lots in a neighbor predominately occupied by duplex development. 4. Is the change consistent with the Land Use Plan? The proposal is consistent with the requested land use map designation for the property. Additionally, the proposed zoning is consistent with the Land Use Plan in general and the following goals and policies found in the Plan: 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1-12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. Subdivision The first set of review criteria to be considered pertain tc lot area and site dimensions as specified in the Zoning Regulations, 12 -6D -5: A. Lot Area The Town Code requires that the minimum lot or site area for a property located within the Two - Family Residential zone district be 15,000 square feet of buildable area. The Town Code defines "buildable area" as any site, lot, parcel or any portion thereof, which does not contain designated floodplain, red hazard avalanche, or areas in excess of 40 % slope. Both proposed lots meet the minimum lot size and buildable area requirements. The lots do not contain any areas designated as floodplain, red hazard snow avalanche, or any areas with grades in excess of 40 %. B. 1= rontage The Town Code requires that any lot in the Two - Family Residential zone district have a minimum frontage of 30 feet. Both lots, as proposed, meet the minimum lot frontage requirement of 30 feet. Booth Palls Homeowner's Association Page S of 7 Braun Associates, Inc. C. Site Dimensions The Town Code requires that each site be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries. The proposed resubdivision will create lots of a size and shape that satisfy this requirement. The second set of review criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request is as outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, 13 -3-4, and is as follows: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. The purpose section of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, is intended to insure that subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community. The subdivision purpose statements from 13 -1 -2 (C) are as follows: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. One purpose of subdivision regulations, and any development control, is to establish basic ground rules which the staff, the PEC, the applicant and the community can follow in the public review process. This application has been submitted according to the requirements of Chapter 13, Subdivision Regulations. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. The proposed plat does not create any conflict with development on adjacent land. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Since there are no changes to land conditions or development standards proposed, we believe this proposal will not be detrimental to the value of land throughout Vail, nor will it be detrimental to the value of land in the immediate area. • Booth Falls Homeowner's Association Fags 6 of 7 Braun Associates, Inc. 4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Town development objectives. We believe the proposed plat will not preclude a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land uses consistent with the Town's development objectives. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. This purpose statement is intended primarily to address large -scale subdivisions as opposed to this particular proposal. We do not believe that this proposal will impact any of the aforementioned facilities. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. The proposed minor subdivision plat will provide for accurate legai descriptions for the proposed lots. 4D 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of the land. Since this proposal does not involve any immediate construction or development, it will have no immediate impact on these issues. In the event that development is to occur in the future on either lot, all applicable Town regulations and standards will be adhered to during the development review process. Booth Falls Homeowner's Association Braun Associates, Inc. Page 7 (if 7 COLLINS & ASSOCIATES &WL©GICAL AM) NATURAL RESOUICE CONSMTANTS P.O. Box 23 - 111.6 MINEOTA DRIVE SILT, CoLolm[3o 81652 PHONE /FAx (970) 876-5400 bacol@rof.net January 15, 2001 Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Steve Prawdzik BAI /Braun Associates, Inc. Booth Falls Homeowners Assoc. P.O. Box 2658 1036 Speer Blvd. Edwards, Colorado 81632 Denver, Colorado 80204 RE: R'sUBD IVISIONoF LOT 12 ,VAIL VILLAGE 12 "H FruNG Dear Mr. Mauriello: At Mr. Mauriello's request I have examined the subject property for the purpose of evaluating potential geologic hazards to the tract, and the effects of mitigating such hazards as may exist on adjacent properties, in accordance with Town of Vail Regulations Chapter 12- 21 -15. The property, part of Lot 12, Vail Village IT' Filing, is being considered for subdivision into two lots and subsequent construction of duplex dwellings on both lots. The roe lies on gently-sloping to nearl -flat round on mixed alluvial and glacial ravels at P p rt3' y g g g the mouth of Booth Creek. The surface of the lot has been significantly disturbed by past construction activities, both on and adjacent to the property. Because of the low slopes generally- stable and well - drained nature of the unconsolidated materials, slope and foundation stability should not present any problems, although as always site - specific soil testing and well - designed final grading and drainage are required. The northeastern boundary of the tract constitutes the downslope limit of high - severity rockfall zone as shown on the Town of Vail geologic hazard maps. The area is shielded by the rockfall protection trench and berm constructed on the hillside to the northeast several years ago, and it is my understanding that a new structure, below the northwestern end of the existing one, is to be constructed to complete rockfall protection for the remainder of the exposed Booth Falls subdivided area. These structures together with existing buildings, roads, and landscaping upslope from the property should constitute adequate protection. I would suggest that the existence of the limited hazard that is present be considered in building design and final grading and landscaping, although since the property is not within the mapped hazard zone this is only a recommendation. The moderate- severity debris -flow hazard zone associated with Booth Creek as shown on the Town of Vail geologic hazard maps passes through the western part of the property, • approximately equivalent to the east and south edges of the tennis courts. Construction and grading since the delineation of this hazard zone have substantially reduced the exposure, although debris overflow down Booth Falls Road retrains possible. A berm should be Page 2 incorporated into final grading and landscaping along the northern and western edges of the property to keep such overflow that might occur substantially on the road and away from structures. In addition the possibility of debris flow should be considered in building and site landscaping design, with foundations within the hazard zone extending at least two feet above final grade with no significant openings facing north and west, as well as positive drainage away from all sides of the structures. The site is not within or close to any of the Town of Vail's identified snow or debris avalanche hazard zones. The necessity for proper drainage and soil testing has been noted. While soils and bedrock materials found in the area do not ordinarily contain radioactive minerals, inhabited structures should as a matter of course be designed to preclude radon gas accumulation. Likewise, the Vail area is one of many faults, some of them of significant displacement, and as a result, although there has been no movement on these structures for thousands of years, inhabited structures should be designed and constructed accordingto the Uniform Building Code provisions for Seismic Zone 1. The site is in an area of modest geological sensitivity, and site- specific mitigating measures are not anticipated to be significant. There is nothing to suggest that the proposed subdivision or potential site specific hazard- mitigating measures that might be required will increase the hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, rights -of way, roads, streets, easements, utilities, or facilities or other properties of any kind. This report is intended to comply with appropriate portions of Town of Vail Regulations Chapter 12- 21 -15, and nothing contained herein should be interpreted as suggesting that the subject property is not exposed to the 0 mapped hazards. if you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sinre -eply This report concems natura[ processes that are unpredictable and in large measum poorly understood. It is intended to identify potential observable hazards to which the subject property is exposed and to suggest mitigating measures in compliance with applicable regulations. Nothing in this report should be construed or interpreted as suggesting the absence ofthe described hazards, orthat the recommended mitigations will protect the subject property from the described hazards under all circumstances, foreseen or unforeseen. Nothing in this report should be construed or interpreted as suggesting that additional unidentified ]hazards are not present. It must also be understood that "mitigation" doer nut mean either the elimination of the harard(sl or prevention oftre consequences of a hazard event or events, only the reduction to the extent reasonably possible of the latter, By accepting this report all present and subsequent parties thereto agree to indemnify and hold harmless the preparer for any and all damages, direct, indirect orcoitsequentlal, including personal injury or loss of life, above and beyond the original cost ofthis study, caused by or resulting from any occurrence of the described or other hazard(s), whether or not such damages may result fiom failure to identify said hazard(s) or from failure or inadequacy of properly engineered, constructed, and maintained recommended mitigations. 11te preparer of this report cannot and will not be responsible in any way or manner whatsoever for the proper engineering, constniction, and/or maintenance of recommended mitigations, or the inadequacy ru failure of improperly engineered, constructed. and/or maintained recommended mitigations, or mitigations that have been altered in any way whatsoever from those recommended by the preparer. 0 ATTACHMENT B AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE (A) DISTRICT 12 -8A -1: PURPOSE: The Agricultural and Open Space District is intended to preserve agricultural, undeveloped, or open space lands from intensive development while permitting agricultural pursuits and low density residential use consistent with agricultural and open space objectives_ Parks, schools, and certain types of private recreational facilities and institutions also are suitable uses in the Agricultural and Open Space District, provided that the sites of these uses remain predominantly open. Site development standards are intended to preclude intensive urban development and to maintain the agricultural and open space characteristics of the District. (Ord. 8(1973) § 12.100) 12 -8A -2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the A District: Plant and tree nurseries and raising of field, row and tree crops. Public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces. 0 Single- family residential dwellings. (Ord. 8(1973) § 12.200) 12 -8A -3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Any use within public parrs, recreation areas, and open spaces which involves assembly of more than two hundred (200) persons together in one building or group of buildings, or in one recreation area or othe public recreationalfacility. Cemeteries. Churches, rectories, and related structures. Low power subscription radio facilities. Private golf, tennis, swimming and riding clubs, and hunting and fishing lodges. Public and private schools and colleges. Semipublic and institutional uses, such as convents and religious retreats. Ski lifts and tows. 0 10 Type II employee housing units (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title. 0 Well water treatment facility. (Ord. 6(2000) § 2: Ord. 8(1992) § 30: Ord. 37 (1991) § 1: Ord. 30(1988) § 1: Ord. 16(1985) § 1: Ord. 16(1976) § 1(a): Ord. 14(1975) § 3: Ord. 8(1973) § 12.300) 12 -8A -4: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the A District: Accessory buildings and uses customarily incidental to permitted agricultural uses, including barns, silos, sheds, corrals pens, and similar uses. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 12- 14 -12of this Title. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single- family residential uses. Retail sale of plants, trees, or other farm or agricultural products grown, produced or made on the premises. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof.(Ord. 21 (1994) § 12: Ord. 16(1976) § 1(a): Ord. 8(1973) § 12.400) 12 -8A -5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be thirty five (35) acres with a minimum of one acre of buildable area. (Ord. 34(1979) § 1) 1 2 -8A -6: SETBACKS: In the A District, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15'), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15'). (Ord. 50(1978) § 2 ) 12 -8A -7: HEIGHT: For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet (30'). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty three feet (33'). (Ord. 37(1980) § 2) 12 -8A -8: DENSITY: Not more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted for each thirty five (35) acres of site area, of which one acre must be buildable; provided, however, that one dwelling shall be allowed on a lot or parcel of less than thirty five (35) acres which contains one acre of buildable area. Such dwelling shall not exceed two thousand (2,000) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA). (Ord. 34(1979) § 1) 0 I1 0 12 -8A -9: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed five percent (5 %) of the total site area. (Ord. 17(1991) § 14: Ord. 8(1973) § 12.507) 12- 8A -10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: Not applicable in the A District. (Ord. 8(1973) § 12.509) 12- 8A -11: PARKING: Off - street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. No required parking shall be located in any required setback area, except as may be specifically authorized in accordance with Chapter 17 of this Title. (Ord. 8(1973)§ 12.510) • • 12 ARTICLE C. TWA?- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R) DISTRICT 12 -6C -1: PURPOSE: The Two - Family Residential District is intended to provide sites for low density single- family or two- family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same district. The Two - Family Residential District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single- family and two - family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. (Ord. 8(1973) § 1190) 12 -6C -2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the R District: Single- family residential dwellings. Two - family residential dwellings. Type I employee housing unit as set forth in Chapter 13 of this Title. (Ord. 6(2000) § 2: Ord. 8 (1992) § 7: Ord. 8(1973) § 3.209) 12 -6C -3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the R District, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 12 -14 -18 of this Title. Dog kennel. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public or private schools. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Type II employee housing units as set forth in Chapter 13 of this Title. (Ord. 6(2000) § 2: Ord. 8(1992) § 8: Ord. 18(1990) § 1: Ord. 29(1982) § 5: Ord. 8(1973) § 3.309) 13 0 12 -6C -4: ACCESSORY USES_ The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the R District: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 -14 -12 of this Title. Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single - family and two- family residential uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. (Ord. 8(1973) § 3.400) 12 -6C -5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of buildable site area. Each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30'). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80') on each side within its boundaries. (Ord. 24(1981) § 1) 12 -6C -6: SETBACKS: In the R District, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15'), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15'). (Ord. 50(l 978) § 2) 12 -6C -7: HEIGHT: For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet (30'). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty three feet (33')- (Ord. 37(19$0) § 2) 12 -6C -8: DENSITY CONTROL: A.Dwelling Units: Not more than a total of two (2) dwelling units shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on existing lots less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet. B -Gross Residential Floor Area: 1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site: a- Twenty five (25) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the first fifteen thousand (15.000) square feet of site area; plus • 14 • b. Ten (10) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, not to exceed thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of site area; plus c. Five (5) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet. 2. In addition to the above, four hundred twenty five (425) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit_ C.Employee Housing Units: Notwithstanding the provision of subsections A and B of this Section, a Type I employee housing unit shall be permitted on lots of less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of this Title. Any Type employee housing unit existing on or before April 18, 2000, shall not be eliminated unless all dwelling units are demolished, in which case the zoning on the property shall apply. However, an existing Type I employee housing unit may be replaced with a Type II employee housing unit on lots of fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet or greater. (Ord. 6(2000) § 4: Ord. 8(1992) §§ 9, 10: Ord. 37 (1990) § 4: Ord. 12(1988) § 3: Ord. 23(1981) § 1: Ord. 22(1981) § 1: Ord. 22(1979) § 1: Ord. 12(1978) § 1) 12 -6C -9: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent (20 %) of the total site area. (Ord. 41(1990) § 4: Ord. 19(1976) § 4: Ord. 8(1973) § 3.507) 12- 6C -10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: At least sixty percent (60 %) of each site shall be landscaped. The minimum of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be ten feet (10') (width and length) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. (Ord. 19(1976) § 4: Ord. 8(1973) § 3.509) 12 -6C-11: PARKING: Off - street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. (Ord. 8(1973) § 3.510) 15 0 I o_ IN C1 O G � li � r Ali f �� 3• P ,. �r - ire" ilj i "is c Q G s¢ ¢ € HIP C� �✓ 1 i �' 3 ? � m _ _ o � a ' p a I P p33 � � 3 AN yi r � f 'Np b , s Approved 3/26101 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES 0 Monday, March 12, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 1:00 pm NO LUNCH MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden Galen Aasland John Schofield Doug Cahill Brian Doyon Site Visits: 1:30 pm 1. Westwind Condos — 548 S. Frontage Rd. 2. Boothfalls — 3160 Boothfalls Rd. Driver: Allison NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6;00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a variance from Section 11- 4B -3(0) Vail Town Code, to allow for a second 0 11 building identification sign, located at 548 S. Frontage Road /Westwind Condominiums. Applicant: Westwind Condominium Association, Inc. Planner: Brent Wilson Bill Gibson gave an overview of the staff memo. Staff's recommendation was for denial. Geoff Wright spoke on behalf of the Westwind Condominium Association. Mr. Wright conveyed his perception that the variance was warranted due to the physical hardship of the large trees that screened the building, making it difficult for guests to find the building. Mr. Wright stated that there was the need for additional signage in order to better serve guests. Mr. Wright referred to several other properties which have more than one sign on the property and examples of those were entered into the record. Brian Doyon stated that he was in agreement with the applicant, and that the additional signage was required. Doug Cahill agreed with the applicant, stating that the request was not unreasonable. He also stated that the sign code needed to be revised so as not to be so restrictive upon guests to Vail. Chas Bernhardt asked if the sign was to be illuminated The applicant said, yes. Galen Aasland stated that he agreed with the applicant. 1 1 TOWNV O YYAfL !! Approved 3126101 MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 4 -0 APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: 1. That the sign on the southwest door be removed. 2- That the sign and any proposed lighting be reviewed by the Design Review Board. 2. A request for a worksession to discuss rezoning from Agriculture and Open Space to Primary /Secondary Residential and a Minor Subdivision to create two residential lots and a request for a recommendation to the Town Council for an amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan changing the land use designation from Public/Semi- Public use to Low Density Residential, located at 3160 Booth Falls Road /Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12 "` Filing. Applicant: Booth Falls Homeowners' Association, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Russell Forrest Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo. Dominic Mauriello, of Braun Associates, spoke on behalf of the Booth Falls Homeowners' Association, in support of the application. Dominic elaborated on the existing condition of this site, stating that there have been many man -made impacts to the site. Dominic also elaborated on the error that had occurred with the adoption of the Land Use Plan, stating that this tract of land was not owned by the Town at the time of adoption, even though it was identified as Town -owned land in the Land Use Plan. He hypothesized that had that error not occurred, the current land use designation may not have been applied at the time the plan was adopted. Dominic further elaborated on the proposed land use designation and zoning, stating that these were more consistent with adjacent land uses and zoning.. Dominic presented the proposed plat for the resubdivision. Susan Fritz spoke on behalf of the Homeowners' Association. Susan provided an historical account of the area. Galen Aasland asked why this parcel of land was owned by the Homeowners' Association. Susan Fritz explained. Doug Cahill asked if a utility easement ran through this piece of land_ Ms. Fritz was unable to answer. Dominic Mauriello responded that a 20' easement ran along the northeastern portion Brian Doyon stated that, though his firm represented the Mountain School, he had nothing to gain or lose by this proposal ,John Wurtz spoke in objection to the proposal, as a Booth Falls court resident adjacent to the property in question. Mr. Marks spoke about the existing trees on the property and stated that he had planted them and that the loss of these trees and construction of single family homes would substantially reduce his property values. Mr. Marks stated that he was very strongly opposed to a change in the neighborhood. Galen Aasland stated that the role of the PEC would not consider any monetary value of adjacent properties, but only the consistency with Town zoning. Halide Gazioglu spoke in objection to the proposal. She stated that she felt there would be a negative impact on her property values. Ms. Holiday stated that she believed the Homeowners' Association should find an alternative way to finance the rockfall berm in order to increase their property values because this would result in a decrease in property values of adjacent properties. 2 1 Y Approved 3/26/01 Galen Aasland stated that the public comment portion of the hearing had been closed for this item. `101 Doug Cahill said he felt that there was room for dwellings on the portion of land without a change in land use designation. Brian Doyon stated that a balance was required in this situation between the existing use and development. Chas Bernhardt stated that there have been errors with the public /semi- public land use designation since the adoption of the Land Use Plan. Chas stated that adjacent properties were misled by what they believed was the intended land use designation. Galen Aasland stated that if the Vail Mountain School were the applicant for this proposal, the proposal might be viewed differently. He expressed concern that if the land use designation were changed and a rezoning occurred, that the property could be sold at free market prices with limited control on future development. Galen stated that he felt there was potential for rezoning, but could not vote on the proposal as it stands. Dominic Mauriello spoke again on behalf of the Homeowners'. He stated that the dot configuration could change and that building envelopes could be configured to minimize the impact on adjacent property owners. Brian Doyon stated that he needed clarification on why "upzoning" should be supported, when the amount of GRFA would increase significantly with the change in zoning. Susan Fritz spoke on behalf of the Homeowners stating that the intention of the proposal was for the Mountain School to construct one single family home and utilize the other lot for open space. Dominic Mauriello spoke again on the merits of Two - Family zoning vs. General Use zoning and that the potential uses under GU zoning could be more impactful than residential uses. He asked if Single Family zoning, with the building footprints restricted to the northwestern portion of the property, would be more suitable. Chas Bernhardt stated that the Homeowners' Association should meet with the neighbors to determine a suitable proposal. Dominic Mauriello said that letters had been sent out and that only one neighbor had replied, objecting to the proposal. He said that they could try again to work with the neighbors. John Wurtz stated that he would not object to a smaller house on the existing tennis court site. Halide Gazioglu spoke on behalf of her neighbors, the Binghams, who also objected to the proposal having leamed about it in Mr. Mauriello's letter. Galen Aasland stated that the neighbors should have understood that there had always been development potential for this property. Doug Cahill suggested that the neighbors meet and discuss potential development on the tennis court area. Susan Fritz spoke again, stating that though open space was desirable, the Homeowners had a right to realize the value of the property. 0 .John Wurtz expressed concern that the property could be sold now or upzoned and then sold for much more money. Dominic Mauriello stated his intent to contact adjacent property owners. Approved 3/26/04 { j Allison Ochs clarified) the public process and stated that a final meeting would be held on March 26 and stated that if there was a change in the proposal, adjacent property owners would be renotified by mail. WORKSESSION — NO VOTE 3. A request for variances from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks) and Title 14 (Development Standards - locating required parking in the Right -of- )Nay), to allow for a residential addition and remodel located at 2955 Bellflower Dr. / Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan Peters, represented by Braun Associates Planner- Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL. MARCH 26, 2001 Brian Doyon moved to approve the February 26 meeting minutes as read_ Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 -0. Brian Doyon moved to adjourn the meeting. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 -0. The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. • • 4